and for the first time in her history the penalty of death has been enforced in the republic for the crime of man-stealing. Then, the black republics of Hayti and Liberia have been recognized by the United States as independent powers; and, even more important still, the vast territories of the United States have been prohibited by law from entering the republic except as free states. And the climax was reached a month ago when Abraham Lincoln, as President of the United States, proclaimed that from that moment every slave in the rebel states was absolutely free, and that the republic was prepared to pay for the freedom of all the slaves in the loyal states. The freely elected government and legislature of the United States have proclaimed that not with their consent shall one slave remain within the republic.

Was I not right, then, when I said that we ought to rejoice together to-night? I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman (Rev. Dr. Willis), on the issue of your forty years' contest here and on the other side of the Atlantic on behalf of the American slave. I congratulate the venerable mover of the first resolution (Rev. Dr. Burns), who for even a longer period has been the unflinching friend of freedom. I congratulate the tried friends of emancipation around me on the platform, and the no less zealous friends of the cause throughout the hall, whose well-remembered faces have been ever present when a word of sympathy was to be uttered for the downtrodden and oppressed. Who among us ever hoped to see such a day as this? And does it not well become us to meet as we are now doing to proclaim anew our earnest sympathy with the friends of freedom in the republic, our hearty gratification at the great results that have been accomplished, and our gratitude to the men who have staked life and fortune on the effort to strike shackles from the bond man. I care not to pry narrowly into the motives of all those who have contributed to bring about this great change in the republic. I care not to examine critically the precise mode by which it has been brought about. I care not to discuss the arguments by which it has been promoted or defended in the republic. What to us signifies all this? We see before us the great fact that the chains have already fallen from the hands of tens of thousands of human chattels; we see that if the policy of the present government at Washington prevails, the curse of human slavery will be swept from the continent for ever; and our hearts go up with earnest petitions to the God of battles that He will strengthen the hands of Abraham Lincoln and give wisdom to his councils.

But we have yet another duty to perform. In the face of all the wonderful progress that the anti-slavery cause has made in the United States -in defiance of the decided emancipation measures of Mr. Lincoln's government-it is the fact, the strange and startling fact, that professing abolitionists-nay, genuine abolitionists, men who have done much for the cause of negro emancipation-are to be found, both here and in Great Britain, who not only refuse their sympathy to Mr. Lincoln, but regard the slave-trafficking government of Jefferson Davis with something very much akin to sympathy and good-will.

As you are aware, I have recently returned from a visit to Great Britain, and I am bound to say that I was astonished and grieved at the feeling with which I found the contest now waging in the United States generally regarded. In my six months' journeyings through England and Scotland I had opportunities of conversing with a very large number of persons in all positions of life, and I am sorry so say that, while there were many marked exceptions among men of thought and influence, the general sympathy was very decidedly on the side of the south. I entirely agree with you, that this feeling has not originated from any change in the popular mind of Great Britain on the subject of African slavery; on the contrary, I believe that the hatred of slavery, and the desire for emancipation all over the world, are nearly as strong as ever. In almost every one of the hundreds of discussions in which I was a participator, it was again and again repeated by all that, could they believe African slavery to be the cause of the civil war, and that Mr. Lincoln was sincerely desirous of bringing the horrid traffic to an end, they would promptly and heartily give their sympathy to his cause. But the truth is, that the systematic misrepresentation of the London Times and other journals, commenced shortly after the outbreak of the civil war and diligently kept up ever since, has perverted the public mind of Great Britain, and the most amazing misconceptions as to the true nature of the struggle are everywhere met with, and that even among the most candid and generous-minded

men.

I have said, that to this general state of feeling there are many eminent exceptions-that there are many men in Britain who perfectly comprehend the whole merits of the contest, and pre-eminent among them, I believe, stand the members of the British cabinet. I entirely agree with you, that the whole policy and conduct of the British government throughout the war has been worthy of all praise; and I do think it is much to be regretted that our neighbours across the lines have not viewed aright the wise course it has pursued, but have permitted their journals and some of their public speakers to indulge in accusations as groundless as impolitic. When the impartial history of this civil war shall be written, that page of it which will record the part taken in it by the British government-its dignified disregard of contumely, its patient endurance of commercial distress and individual suffering and destitution directly resulting from the war, its firm persistent resistance of the seductions of other powers to intrude unasked in the domestic feuds of the republic-will, I am persuaded, stand out as an imperishable monument to the wisdom and justice of the men who held the helm. Whatever misconceptions may exist among the people, there have been no misconceptions on the part of the British government; firmly and discreetly it has pursued the only course open to it, that of scrupulous neutrality. That the sympathies of the people of England have not been with the north in the present struggle—that those who urged the American people to throw off the disgrace of slavery have not acted up to their own principles when their advice was followed and the contest came -that aid and encouragement have been largely given to the slaveocracy

by the subjects of Great Britain-we are forced to concede and to deplore; but the British people are a free people-over these things their government has little or no control-and what has been done by the British government as a government has been all that any just American could demand.

Now, I humbly conceive that in all this we, the anti-slavery men of Canada, have an important duty to discharge. We who have stood here on the borders of the republic for quarter of a century protesting against slavery as the "sum of all human villainies”—we who have closely watched every turn of the question-we who have for years acted and sympathized with the good men of the republic in their efforts for the freedom of their country-we who have a practical knowledge of the atrocities of the "peculiar institution," learnt from the lips of the panting refugee upon our shores-we who have in our ranks men well known on the other side of the Atlantic as life-long abolitionists-we, I say, are in a position to speak with confidence to the anti-slavery men of Great Britain-to tell them that they have not rightly understood this matter-to tell them that slavery is the one great cause of the American rebellion, and that the success of the north is the death-knell of slavery. Strange, after all that has passed, that a doubt of this should remain! The north declares that it was the determination to perpetuate and extend slavery that caused the south to appeal to arms; the south declares that the determination of the north to abolish slavery caused the election of Mr. Lincoln, and that this is the great end and aim of his government; the whole thirty millions of the American people unite in declaring slavery to be the one great issue of the war; but these good people, thousands of miles off, who never had their foot on American soil, are satisfied that they know better, and that slavery has no concern in the matter! Tens of thousands of lives have been lost, hundreds of millions of treasure have been spent, the peace and happiness of every family in the land has been broken up; but it seems the combatants are in entire ignorance of the cause of quarrel; the whole contest is a mere strife for power!

Now, we who have watched the struggle from the commencement, and from day to day, almost from hour to hour, well know how erroneous all this is. We can look back on the time when the abolitionists of the states were a small and feeble party; we can recollect when James G. Birney, the abolition candidate for the presidency, received no more than six thousand votes in the whole republic; we can recollect when noble old John Quincy Adams stood almost alone battling in congress for the first right of freedom-the sacred right of petition; we can remember how completely and how ruthlessly the slave influence dominated over the whole affairs of the republic: and well can we remember when the first ray of hope broke in upon us when the slaveocracy, growing insolent in their day of power, rushed to their own destruction by the repeal of the Missouri compromise that laid down the line of demarcation between slavery and freedom. That act did more for the cause of emancipation than tongue

can tell. The fierce contests fought in Kansas and Nebraska between freedom and slavery added immensely to the strength of the friends of freedom; and the atrocious Fugitive Slave Law, compelling the freemen of the north to become slot-hounds on their own farms after the human chattels of the slave-holders of the south, roused a feeling deep and strong throughout the free states. It was soon apparent that the time had come when the issue between freedom and slavery for supremacy in the republio must be fought and won. That feeling increased and strengthened until it became overwhelming in the northern states; and under its influence the great republican party was formed, and Abraham Lincoln selected as their standard-bearer in the presidential contest.

Now, let it be well remembered that Mr. Lincoln was not elected as an abolitionist in the sense ordinarily applied to that term. He did not openly avow that slavery was an outrage on all law, human and divine, and that every law or constitution framed to legalize and establish it should be treated with contempt, and the vile traffic swept away. Mr. Lincoln and the party who elected him did not go that length. They said, we want nothing more than the constitution gives us; we wish to abolish slavery wherever we have control under the constitution; we wish to restrict slavery within its present domain, so far as the constitution permits us to do; we wish to exercise our constitutional right to prevent the extension of slavery over the territories of the republic not yet admitted as states of the union. That was the sum and substance of the republican demand; they stood by the constitution. And when it is asked why the northern men have always averred that they were fighting for the union and the constitution, and not for abolition, it should be borne in mind that the constitution gave them all the power that they could possibly desire. Well did they know, and well did the southerners know, that any antislavery president and congress, by their direct power of legislation, by their control of the public patronage, and by their application of the public moneys, could not only restrict slavery within its present boundaries, but could secure its ultimate abolition. The south perfectly comprehended that Mr. Lincoln, if elected, might keep within the letter of the constitution and yet sap the foundation of the whole slave system. And they acted accordingly. A great and final effort was resolved on by the slave power for the mastery of the union; and it was insolently proclaimed that if the northern electors dared to elect Mr. Lincoln to the presidential chair, the south would secede from the union, and enforce their secession by an appeal to arms. The present rebellion then was conceived and planned, not only before Mr. Lincoln appeared at Washington, but previous to his election; it was his determination to restrict the limits of slavery so far as he had the power under the constitution, and no further. Well, the north was not intimidated by the threats of the south, and Mr. Lincoln was elected. From that day actual revolution began. Months before he was sworn in, the southerners, with the connivance of a weak democratic president, commenced their preparations for revolt. Arms and

supplies were distributed over the south, and before Mr. Lincoln reached Washington, the tocsin of civil war had been sounded. The first blow was struck by the southerners-it was struck at Fort Sumter-although Mr. Lincoln had not yet taken the slightest step in the direction of emancipation. The preservation and perpetuation of slavery was the one cause why that blow was struck: and, had any doubt on that point existed, the speech of Mr. Stephens, Vice-President of the confederate states, delivered at Savannah in March last, would have effectually removed it. He said:

"Last, not least, the new constitution has put at rest for ever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution-African slavery as it exists among us, the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this as the 'rock upon which the old union would split.' He was right. What was conjecture with him is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature, that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. Those ideas, how

ever, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation; and the idea of a government built upon it-when 'the storm came and the wind blew, it fell.' Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its corner stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and moral condition. This, our new government, is the first in the history of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth."

Here the issue between north and south is clearly and frankly stated, and those who sympathize with the south can see very plainly what it is they are aiding to establish. But the question is constantly put, Why, when Mr. Lincoln and his government saw that the southern states were determined to leave the union, did they not let them go in peace, and save the fearful effusion of blood that has been witnessed? To this I think it might be enough for an American to reply, Why did not England let the thirteen states go? Why did not Britain let Ireland go? Why did not Austria let Hungary go? Why does not the Pope let the people of Rome go? We have often heard of parts or sections of states desing to secede, sometimes with reason and sometimes without, but who ever heard the central authority of any country patiently acquiescing in the dismemberment of their land? Such a concession is not in human nature, however reasonable the demand for it. But it is contended the south had the right to secede; the republic was but a collection of independent states surrendering for a while their sovereignty, but holding the right to reassume it at any moment. Now, I do not think it worth while to waste