Even if the North were sure of an easy and complete victory--short, of course, of actual subjugation of the South (which no one dreams of)--the war which was to end in such a victory would still be, in the eyes of prudence and worldly wisdom, an objectless and unprofitable folly[319]." But by the middle of June the American irritation at the British Proclamation of Neutrality, loudly and angrily voiced by the Northern press, had caused a British press resentment at this "wilful misrepresentation and misjudgment" of British attitude.

"We _do_ believe the secession of the Slave States to be a _fait accompli_--a completed and irreversible transaction.

We believe it to be impossible now for the North to lure back the South into the Union by any compromise, or to compel them back by any force." "If this is an offence it cannot be helped[320]." The majority of the London papers, though not all, passed through the same shifts of opinion and expression as the _Economist_; first upbraiding the South, next appealing to the North not to wage a useless war, finally committing themselves to the theory of an accomplished break-up of the Union and berating the North for continuing, through pride alone, a bloody conflict doomed to failure.

Meanwhile in midsummer attention was diverted from the ethical causes at issue by the publication in the _Times_ of Motley's letter analysing the nature of the American constitution and defending the legal position of the North in its resistance to secession.

Motley wrote in protest against the general British press attitude: "There is, perhaps, a readiness in England to prejudge the case; a disposition not to exult in our downfall, but to accept the fact[321]...." He argued the right and the duty of the North to force the South into subjection.