therefore, in his view of the case, every incentive to the strongest feelings and to resolute action. Looking at the election of Mr. Lincoln from a European point of view, it was an ordinary, an insignificant event; looking at it as seen by the Southerner, it was the knell of the departing independence and welfare of his portion of the Continent.

As it was the "cry" of that election, let us briefly consider this question of the admission of Slavery into the territories. We shall find in it an illustration of the argument, that the action of the South, on this subject, though in appearance aggressive, has really been in self-defence, as a means of maintaining its political status, against the growth of the North. Between two rival powers, the result is obvious, if the one be rapidly growing, and the other remain stationary. But there are those who have confounded the idea of a means with that of an object. Politically, as in competition with the North, it is of great importance whether New Mexico, or Arizona, be admitted as a Slave or as a Free State. At once, thereupon, its vote would be as effective in the Senate, as that of the Empire State, New York. But apart from this consideration, what possible advantage can the Southern planter derive from this extension into new regions? He is a grower of cotton. Will it increase his profits to have more cotton produced, to compete with him? He owns a large estate. It cannot benefit him that

more fertile lands should be found, and the value of his own reduced. He is surrounded by friends, local associations, and some of the comforts of life. Is it desirable to abandon all these, in order to plunge into a wilderness of hardship and barbarism? Can he be supposed to do this, except reluctantly, and from some overruling necessity? Obviously, his interest, and that of his State, lie in the avoidance of competition with themselves, and in the preservation of the value of their soil; in other words, in restricting, instead of expanding the growth of cotton. As an end, an object of desire, nothing could be further from their wishes than this expansion. It is an unfortunate result of the complex politics of the Union, that the political instinct of the South is driven to oppose its material interest. It must expand whilst the North expands, or succumb. It cannot seek expansion from choice or interest, but is driven to it by the impulse of political self-preservation.

The attempt to invest with a moral sentiment this question of Slavery in the territories, will become little less than ridiculous, if we look into the facts. New Mexico, the most important of all the territories, has been organized more than ten years. It is open to Slavery-the Supreme Court protects it, the Government has fostered it there. Its climate is suitable, it lies at the extreme South, and adjoins a Slave State-Texas. With all these advantages, it is clear that Slavery will have made rapid progress, if the spread of it be really an

object of desire. What are the facts? New Mexico has an area of 200,000 square miles, and at the end of ten years there are upon it 22 slaves, and of these only 12 are domiciled. Are we then to suppose that the conscience of the North is so framed that it grieves over this poor dozen, at the same time that it endures four millions close at home? Or can we suppose that there is any real desire in the people of the South to extend Slavery, for its own sake, when, under every conceivable advantage, they advance, in occupying a region four times as large as England, at the rate of one slave per annum?

In this we see the truth of Dr. Mackay's observation-the question is political on both sides, and nothing else. The moment the South has secured the vote of New Mexico, its people care little to go there, or to take slaves there, for the reasons we have named. The object of the North is the same-the vote of the State in the Senate. The name of Slavery is used as a telling cry, as an electioneering manœuvre. Those who want a pretext, naturally adopt the most specious. To suppose them in earnest in this cry, would really be to mock their intelligence; for we must assume them to be outraged and excited by an evil, at a distance of 2,500 miles, which they endure in their own metropolis, crawling on the steps of the Capitol. What is the language even of those who profess to be acting for conscience' sake?

In Mr. Helper's book, to which we shall have

presented to a The real object now wrest from

That is a fair

further occasion to allude, we find this passage:
"Too long have we yielded a submissive obedience
to the tyrannical domination of an inflated oli-
garchy; too long have we tolerated their arro-
gance and self-conceit, their unjust and savage
exactions. Let us now wrest from them the sceptre
of power, and establish liberty and equal rights
throughout the land." The close of this sentence
will not blind many. The first French Republic
went forth to enslave its neighbours, in the name
of "liberty and equal rights." We can find no
instance where liberty was ever
people at the point of a sword.
comes out incautiously-"let us
them the sceptre of power.
political object, but why cloak it under a sham?
And there is another proof that Slavery exten-
sion is merely a party watchword. The whole con-
tinent is now mapped out from the Atlantic to the
Pacific-which is the territory that now produces
anxiety to the conscience? The North has already
surrendered to the South the whole of the terri-
tories in which Slavery could exist. Kansas is a
settled question. From its western boundary Utah
stretches across to California, the destiny of which
latter is also decided. Is it to be supposed that
the people of the South would cross the vast
regions of Kansas and Utah, in order to reach the
wilds and winter's cold of Nebraska, or Dacotah?
There are but two territories left to which the
question could apply-New Mexico and Arizona,

and both of those are already given up to Slavery. Thus, as a matter of practical bearing, the whole question is perfectly idle. The North has surrendered the whole of the South to Slavery, and also the whole of the territories into which it can be carried. They object to its extension where it cannot be extended. As a theme of party declamation this is intelligible enough, but it seems strange that any can be found without sufficient penetration to discern its merits as a moral question.

That the small number of the Northern people who are really earnest should desire to stay the expansion of Slavery, repugnant as it is to the civilization of the present day, is very natural; and in the principles they profess we sympathize. But it does not follow that their views are permitted by the law, or in accordance with the Constitution. On the contrary, the territories are possessed for the common good of the whole of the States. Because one section of the country entertains now a sincere but novel belief, this confers no right to force it upon the other. By the Constitution, Slavery is not only protected, but, amongst other means, by that of all conceivable, the most offensive to freemen. The owner of a slave can pursue him into a Free State, where Slavery is prohibited by law, and take him back thence into bondage. In the face of this, can it be asserted that he may not take him into a territory where no such prohibition exists, which is not a Free State, and which of right belongs to him or