The doctrine of the Declaration of Independence had reacted in Europe, and the French Revolution, which followed so closely on the American, threatened to overthrow the whole social fabric in the Old World and to reconstruct its governments on the basis of the great American idea promulgated by Jefferson. To counteract these tendencies, the English statesmen of the day sought to distract the attention of the people from their own wrongs to the fancied wrongs of the negro—and Wilberforce, Dr. Johnson, and other tory leaders and writers, originated that world-wide delusion and imposture which, in the name of freedom, has probably done more damage to freedom than all other influences combined, within the last seventy years. The assumption of a single race—that the negro was a _black_-white man, and therefore entitled to all the rights of white men, naturally attracted the attention and aroused the sympathies of the English masses, and when the supposed wrongs of the negro in America were contrasted with their own, the latter, doubtless, seemed utterly insignificant in comparison. The English government, therefore, entered on an “anti-slavery” policy, which, beginning with the abrogation of the “slave trade” has continued ever since, and though it has impoverished, and, in fact, destroyed some of the finest provinces of the British empire, it is as avowed, defined, and energetic at this moment, perhaps even more so than at any other period since it was commenced. Mr. Calhoun and others have supposed that the so-called emancipation of negroes in the British West India Islands originated in a spirit of commercial rivalry, and in order to monopolize tropical production in their East Indian possessions that they were willing to sacrifice utterly their West Indian colonies. There can be no doubt that British statesmen universally believed that the example they were about to give us in this respect would be followed by universal “emancipation” in the United States, as, indeed, it has been followed by all the European governments owning American possessions. But while this was expected by every body in England, and thus far may be said to have been the prime motive of their action, it is not reasonable to assume that British statesmen were prompted by a spirit of commercial rivalry or believed for a moment that they were concocting a grand scheme for securing a monopoly of tropical products. The policy begun by Pitt forty years previous, naturally and necessarily culminated in the “emancipation” of 1832, though the desire to neutralize the popular excitement then prevailing in respect to parliamentary reform, doubtless hastened the action of the government. English statesmen may be unable, and probably are unable to explain the motives for their “anti-slavery” policy, but they never mistake or fail to recognize its vital importance to the preservation of their system. Democracy and aristocracy are