into insignificance, while interposing between us and a paramount duty. Has this been refuted? No; it has not been noticed. Again; I went on to explain the objects of the meeting, which were to seek the immediate and total extinction of slavery; not, observe, the destruction of the planters, not the spoliation of property, not the injury of commerce, not to deprive the widow and the fatherless of their pittance, but the accomplishment of a plan of redemption, both for the oppressor and the oppressed; of the former from the demoralizing influence of the system upon him, and of the latter from the degredation and misery inseparable from a state of abject servitude. Was this improper has its impropriety been shewn in the way of reply? No. The gentleman declared again and again that he agreed with me, and yet we are at dagger's points. He took precisely the same ground as I did, except that abolition should not be immediate. That it should be done, BUT NOT NOW. I am an abolitionist. He is an abolitionist; and yet, though we differ on so few points, 'I will pursue you,' said this very man, from place to place like your evil genius.' But there appears to be a whole host of genii. My cry is, a clear stage and a fair hearing, and then come on, come on, come on! (Loud cheers.) Ay, though you have the whole of the West India committee at your heels, come on! With this book (the Bible) in my hand-with slavery and chains, and christians for the slave's masters, I shall never fear the issue of the contest. What was my next point! I denounced slavery as unjust and iniquitous in its origin, its progress and present operations, and I appealed to Jeremie. And here let me get my friend to put down that word. Jeremie, Jeremie, Jeremie. But not a word of Jeremie did we hear from him. I appealed to Jeremie's Essays on Colonial Slavery, pages 5, 6, 7 and 8, and has any reply been offered by way of invalidating the testimony of an eye and ear witness! No. I appealed to the same testimony, page 102, in reference to West India insurrections has this been disproved? Have you

.

met with a reply? No. What did I glance at next? I spoke of the massacre of about 2,000 negroes, of the demolition of chapels, of the persecution of missionaries, of Church Colonial Unions for the banishment of all sectari

ans, of the conduct of white magistrates, white planters, and white militiamen, who engaged in those bloody transactions. I spoke of the treatment of Mr. Knibb's deacon, who was flogged and ironed for praying that GOD would support his Christian minister. I referred to extracts from Jamaica papers, particularly the Christian Record,' a Jamaica periodical. And was I replied to? No. After all the ferocious conduct of these Jamaica individuals, not one of these disinterested West Indian agents, not one of these friends to the abolition of slavery, has lifted up his voice to denounce these infernal proceedings in the Island of Jamaica. This speaks volumes. Believe them if you will; believe that they are with the negro;` believe that they would give their whole heart and hand to the abolition of slavery, when not one of them has lifted up his voice against the wanton destruction of the negro, or the fiend-like persecution of the missionary!

On the practice of slavery, I spoke of five negroes who had been flogged for picking grass, and would have exposed themselves to the same punishment if they had disobeyed orders; a case published in the Christian Record.' Has this been answered? No: he spoke only of the four parlors and saloon of the negro. There he stuck, and never went beyond its confines in his speech. I read part of thirty-four advertisements for runaway negroes, and he spoke of the condition of English laborers. I spoke of brand-marks, of sabre-marks, of flogging, and of the loss of fingers and toes, and challenged him to produce any portion of the community to exhibit appearances like these. Was there any reply to this? Not a syllable was granted to me. I stated next that the argument of danger was fallacious. I said they saw no danger in building ships, in manning them with British seamen, in paying for them with British money-no danger in burning towns, stealing the inhabitants, throwing them into the sea, packing them up in hogsheads, and in continuing the system of Colonial Slavery; but they profess to see dangers in liberating the slave, though protected by British troops, a powerful militia, a numerous and loyal free black population, British laws, a British Governor, a House of Assembly, and all the encouragement and protection which humanity, justice, and religion can afford. Was there any

reply to this? Not a word. I stated that compensation was the ground of their opposition; that the planters wished to make a market of slavery; that those concerned were determined to sell it as dear as possible; and that they were now striving to wring from the humanity of the people of England a last price for the abandonment of the system. Has there been any reply to this? No.

I will presently show that this representative of the West India body absolutely put the members of that body beyond the pale of compensation; proved that they would be infinite gainers by emancipation, and that they would be dishonest and avaricious in the extreme, if they should claim indemnification for the liberation of those whom this advocate declared were already a cause of loss to their owners. But I will tell that gentleman why his party asks compensation. They know the people of this country anxiously desire the extinction of slavery; they know that the humane, and the benevolent, and the pious, would not hesitate to make some pecuniary sacrifice to get rid of the odious blot, and therefore they have determined to make the best feelings of our nature subserve the gratification of their cupidity. We all know that the most virtuous and amiable of men are frequently made the dupes of the designing, that 'honest men are the soft easy chusions on which knaves repose and fatten ;' and acting upon this, they will seek to make the awakened feelings of your bosoms in behalf of the captive, add to the weight of their unhallowed purse. My opponent thought proper to give a bill payable on Tuesday evening last. That bill was seen upon every wall in the neighborhood, duly accepted and made payable at the Town Hall, Salford; but lo! when the time came, and a large auditory assembled to witness the honoring of the draft, there were no effects,' although the acceptor was surrounded by many friends; yet in the time of need they could not muster enough of the needful, to save their West India advocate from insolvency, and he now appears before you to take the benefit of the act. (Immense cheering and laughter.)

I had divided my address upon the previous evening into several distinct and independent branches, and thereby afforded them an opportunity of dividing and subdividing the work of reply amongst them, if it were found too

gigantic for one. And, if they have read Adam Smith upon the advantages to be derived from a division of labor, it is wonderful they did not avail themselves of his philosophy on the night of reply. The task might then, perhaps, have been accomplished. To Mr. Borthwick might have been assigned the theological divsion, together with the less grave, and more grateful duty of complimenting the ladies; Mr. Peart might have undertaken to show the practice of slavery in the Colonies; Mr. Saintsbury a vindication of the purity, piety, and perfect disinterestedness of the St. James street Committee; Mr. Shand, the claims of the shipping interest of Liverpool, and Mr. Franklin might have closed the evening's entertainment by the exhibition of a pro-slavery panoramic illustration of the principal events in the history of the system from the time of Elizabeth downwards.-I was careful to give the gentleman my definition of immediate emancipation, and stated it distinctly-not that it was a freedom from lawnot that it was a freedom from labor-not that it was a freedom to destroy each other, and to unite to destroy their masters-that I pleaded only for a legislative enactment, abolishing the unnatural right of property in the bodies and souls of men and their posterity, and a substitution, at the same time, of ́public, judicial, and responsible authority, for private, arbitrary, and irresponsible control. That was all I asked, and all, I contend, we mean by immediate abolition. They are now governed by the planters, than whom, to govern, there is not a more unfit class of men in the world. Is there no wisdom in the House of Commons—is there no wisdom in the House of Assembly-can none but planters govern the negro? I contend that neither a Wilbeforce, nor a Howard ought to have arbitrary control or power over his fellow-man; that no man should be allowed, at his caprice, to scourge his servant. What is the security of our property and our lives, but that men shall not be judges in their own cause, (hear, hear,) that they shall be compelled to appeal to an unpacked jury to prove their innocence or guilt? But, in the West India islands, there are planters for judges, planters for magistrates, planters for juries, and planters for witnesses; all 'lords of the ascendant.' Yet it was asserted by Mr. Borthwick the other night, that there was

6

an equal law both for the slave and the planter, and it seems I acted contra bones mores in crying No, No, No!' Now for my reply. I will not do as he did, forget the discourse I am professing to reply to. I will track him close through every lane-step by step. I will begin at the beginning, and will not leave off till I get to the end. I shall have anticipated some portions of this reply, but I will begin. He said, ' I appear here as the representative of a large and influential body.' Some one inquired what body he did represent? and he replied, The West Indian body.' He said that the planters had been calumniated. I had said, emphatically, it was against the system only that I raised my voice-my desire was to raise the slave, whose immortal destiny is like my own-that Christian men should have fellowship with him-that they should sympathise with him, and that no slave should be found in the British dominions. (Cheers.) The next assertion of my Hon. Opponent was, that it was not a question of passion, but of policy. With them it is a question of policy,-unmixed policy. We commence with duty-they commence with policy. Then, again, he said, it was not a question of imagination, but a question of religion. We shall presently come to the religious part of the question. He said also it was a question of right between man and man. I like that position uncommonly well. We will take it for our motto, and inscribe it on our banners, which shall be waved in England, Ireland, and Scotland, RIGHT BETWEEN MAN AND MAN.' (Cheers.) Let it be so discussed. But here we are at issue on the question of rights, for they plead for the right to do as they like with their fellow-beings. But a greater man than I, or that gentleman has said-and when you have applauded the sentiment I will tell you the name of the author :

Be

"Tell me not of rights-talk not of the property of the planter in his slaves. I deny the right-I acknowledge not the property. The principles, the feelings of our common nature, rise in rebellion against it. the appeal made to the understanding or to the heart, the sentence is the same that rejects it. In vain you tell me of the laws that sanction such a claim! There is a law above all the enactments of human codes-the same throughout the world, the same in all times-such as it was before the daring genius of Columbus pierced the night of ages, and opened to one world, sources of power, wealth and knowledge; to another, all unutterable woes; -such it is at this day: it is the law written by the finger of God on the