evil of slavery existing in those colonies, pronounce it wrong, and, having the power, could and did proceed to remove it. In this she had scarcely more sacrifice to make than she would have in seeing it removed from the United States, or any other part of America. The twenty millions which she undertook to pay by way of remuneration, was indeed, so far, a sacrifice, — but it was a sacrifice trifling indeed, and scarcely felt at all, compared with that which would be required of a country removing slavery from itself; for in that case, not only would it be necessary to make a far greater pecuniary sacrifice, but that would be the least part of it: the grand difficulty lies in giving up old habits, changing long-rooted institutions, completely inverting a long-established social order, — all of which things, we know, it is most difficult for men to do. Had the English Colonies themselves — or had the slave-owners in those Colonies — voluntarily given up their slaves, that would indeed have been in some measure a parallel case with what is required of America: or had Great Britain possessed the institution of slavery on her own soil, in London and Yorkshire, in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and then had shown the magnanimity and moral courage to pass an act of Parliament, uprooting at once that old institution, and, contrary to all long-cherished customs, feelings, and social habits, had given up and set free at once three millions of slaves — that would indeed have been a parallel case to America's. But is there any likelihood that this would have been done? When Great Britain finds it so hard to make even trivial changes in her own long-established institutions, deep-rooted usages and customs, — is there the
