liberties of their countrymen.  Mr. Ellison does not desire immediate emancipation, and wastes no sentiment upon the sufferings of the negro.  But the economical and social position of Slavery is given with the unanswerable emphasis of careful figures.  He traces the rise and increase of the institution in the States, until its disgrace culminates in a bloody rebellion.  He clearly shows, that, by acknowledging the doctrine involved in Secession, by allowing it to govern the intercourse between nations, the morality of society would be shaken from its base.  The anti-slavery character of the strife in which we are involved is made to appear,—­slavery-diffusion being the object of the South, slavery-restriction the aim of the North.  It is shown that the Secession ordinances utterly failed to point out a single instance in which the rights of the Southern people were infringed upon by the National Executive; also, that the alleged right of Secession is neither Constitutional, nor, when backed by no tangible grievance, can it he called revolutionary.  In short, Mr. Ellison takes the only ground which seems possible to loyalists in America:  namely, that Secession—­in other words, the treason of slaveholders against the Constitution of their country—­is of necessity punishable by law; and that good men of all nationalities should unite in the moral support of a benignant government thus wantonly assailed.

The “practical scheme of emancipation” promised us in the title can hardly be said to amount to a scheme at all; but there are suggestions worth attending to, if that delicate matter might be managed as we would, not as we must.

We have marked but two passages for a questioning comment.  General Taylor, by an inadvertency strange to pass to a second edition, is represented as putting down the South-Carolina Nullifiers in 1838.  Also, Dr. Charles Mackay, the New-York Correspondent of the London “Times,” is quoted as having once borne anti-slavery testimony.  This is certainly hard.  Whatever emoluments slave-masters or their allies may hereafter have it in their power to bestow this gentleman has fairly earned.  If he ever did say anything that was disagreeable to them, it should not be remembered against him.

The merit of Mr. Ellison’s book is neither in rhetoric, philanthropic sentiment, nor any exalted theory of political philosophy; it is in an unanswerable appeal to statistics, and a condensed statement of facts.  The work may be commended to all desirous of arriving at the truth.

But no conventional phrases of a book-notice can express our obligations to Mr. Ellison and those few of his countrymen who have publicly rebuked the noisy bitterness of writers striving, with too much success, to debauch the sentiment of England.  Most dear to us is an occasional lull in that storm of insolence and mendacity designed to embarrass the Government of the United States in the august and solemn championship of human