nism and ill-feeling has been produced by the war. Now, I grant, if this was a war of the whole people of the North against the whole population of the South, there would be much force in the argument; but a moment's reflection will teach you that such is not the fact, and that the very opposite is nearer the truth. Let me ask you to consider, first, that the territory now held by the South--(and which I rejoice to add is barely two-thirds of what they held 3 years ago, the area held by the Confederates in 1861 being over 800,000 square miles, with a free population of 63 millions, and a slave population of 3 millions; but now they only hold a territory of 500,000 square miles, a free population of a little over 2 millions, and a slave population of 24 millions), -in this territory, under the iron despotism and crushing tyranny of the Southern Confederacy, there is now nearly as large a population of slaves, as free men. I wonder whether they are in favour of secession! Do you think it likely that they would vote for the perpetuation of human bondage, and a Confederacy founded on Slavery? Then, if not, what becomes of your notion that there is a United South? How can it be said that the North are trying to oppress the South, when the advance of the Federal flag carries liberty to half the population, and "the opening of prison doors to those who are bound?"

But, again: is it true that even the white population of the South are united in favour of secession? If so, how is it that after Mr. Lincoln's election every state in the South voted against secession except South Carolina? I stand here to assert that such was the fact, and that the Southern candidate that was in favour of union and slavery, received a much larger vote than the candidate that was in favour of secession. Nay, more--I stand here to assert that several of the Southern States were coerced into secession, 'and the lives of many of the state governors and members of the state legislature were threatened if they did not vote in favour of secession. The argument of the South has generally been the bludgeon and the bowie knife, and they used both freely to bring about secession. And, further, notwithstanding all the attempts to suppress the truth, and to prevent the spread of information, we hear, coming up from various parts of the South, sounds that do not look much like entire union in the doctrine of secession. It seems very likely. that North Carolina will secede from secession, and that

unless the South make terms with the North, they will very soon make the best terms they can on their own account. The honest and manly confession of General Gautt, of Arkansas, lately a General in the Confederate army, is very significant; he admits that he took up the sword to extend slavery, and thought the North would not contest the point, but that now he sees the cause of the South is hopeless and slavery doomed and further, let me ask you to note that wherever the Northern armies have gone they have received, comparatively, no opposition from the native population. Missouri, Kentucky, Western Virginia, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, have mainly been cleared of Confederate armies; and what is the result? Why, that a feeling is at once evoked in favour of union; and, I am also glad to say, in favour of abolition. Such, then, being the facts, I contend that there is no ground for the assertion that the whole population of the South are in favour of secession, and that they can only be held in subjection by military rule. -I assert again, the only cause of quarrel between the two sections of the country is slavery; remove that and there will be union. The whole interest of the country is in favour of union and peace, and union without slavery will be a reality and not a sham.

4th. Another fallacy that has been rather popular in this country is, that the cause of the slave would be benefitted, and the doom of slavery would be rendered more certain, by separation. Those who thus argue tell us, that the Union has covered and protected slavery in the past, that coloured people are despised and ill-treated in the North, and that the only chance they have of freedom is by the separation of the North and South. I think there are many persons who sincerely hold this opinion, though by what process of reasoning they have come to such a conclusion, I confess I am at a loss to understand. Suppose I admit, for the sake of argument, that separation would induce the North to repeal the fugitive slave law (it has been practically repealed there for some years). Suppose they opened their arms to every slave that crossed the border, and placed the protection of their flag over the fugitive. Let me ask you to think how this would operate upon the condition of the slave. First, how much more rigid would be the supervision that would be exercised over him! How closely lie would be watched! What thousands would be murdered in the attempt to.

escape! The whole of the Border States would be filled with bloodhounds and man hunters, always watching for their prey; and then, again, how unhappy would be the condition of the poor fugitive when he got North! Nataralised as he is to a Southern climate, it would be like exposing a tender tropical plant to the bleak winds and nipping frosts of the frigid zone. The proper home, the natural residence of the Black population is South; and I believe that instead of separation leading to greater freedom to the negro race, union will result in their emancipation. And let me also ask you to remember that separation would imply large standing armies on both sides, each watching the other. This would necessitate a vastly increased system of taxation, and a consequent advance on the cost and price of all the productions of America, which would be nothing more nor less than a tax upon all the nations of Europe now dependent upon America for raw materials.

You ask, why could there not be separation and peace? And my reply is-Because the two sections would have two entirely distinct and separate social systems. It is possible for nations to adopt different political systems and live at peace. You may have a monarchical government on one side of a line, and a republican government on the other, without war, or even without that friction and irritation that too often lead to war. But you cannot have two systems side by side, divided only by a line drawn on paper, so utterly at variance as freedom and slavery, without constant war. There are no natural geographical divisions, no great mountain ranges or broad seas to divide them; but slavery and freedom standing side by side, always in collision, always rubbing one against the other. say, without hesitation, that so long as human nature is what it is, it would be impossible to have a state of things like that, without leading to constant war.

of

But, I am told that the South would abolish slavery if let alone. Where is the proof of it, I ask? Are they not at this moment hesitating about the exchange of prisoners, because they refuse to treat coloured men as prisoners war? Do they not persistently refuse to treat as men every human being with a black skin? Is it not a fact, that they either shoot in cold blood, or sell into brutal bondage, every coloured soldier they can catch, and that they have openly proclaimed their intention to shoot or

hang every officer who dares lead a black regiment in the field? Are these the evidences upon which you rely to prove the disposition of the South to abolish slavery? If so, you are, I confess, rather gullible.

5th. Another fallacy that has been popular during the discussion of the American war, has been this:-That the country was too large, and that it would be better for England and the world that there should be a separation. I think this feeling has been very widely entertained, and has greatly helped to produce that moral squint relative to the American question that I am here to-night trying to counteract. In reply to this fallacy, allow me first to remind you, that the policy of America in the past has not been an aggressive policy: while, I believe, they could and would defy the world in vindication of their own rights and national honour, yet they are weak and comparatively powerless for aggressive war; and therefore, their growth and prosperity was no menace to Europe. Prior to the outburst of the present war, their army and navy were so small that they could only be regarded as a police force, and could be no object of dread to other nations. Allow me to remind you, that the whole army they could legally have prior to secession only consisted of 25,000 men, and the real numbers they had at command were only 18,000; and further, it is well known that their traditional policy, from the time they became a nation, has been to avoid all interference with the affairs of other nations. They have been, especially careful to avoid, and I think wisely so, entangling themselves in the affairs of Europe; their motto has been -trade with all, but alliance with none; and hence for the past seventy-five years no one can say that American growth, or American prosperity, has endangered the peace of the world.

But there is another side to this question I should like to call your attention to, and that is, that any aggressive policy that has been developed in the history of America, such as in the dishonest annexation of Texas, and the conduct of the American government towards Mexico, has been the result of Southern, and not Northern policy. The North has always been against the acquisition of fresh territory; the South has been favourable to it. The fact is, that slavery so impoverishes a country that it needs a constant accession of land in order to allow the infernal system

to spread. If you hedge round slavery, it is like putting a bowl over a light, it soon dies out. To tie a cord round it is to strangle the monster, and to circumscribe it is to stop up its breathing-hole, and stifle the reptile. Sympathy with the South, therefore, means sympathy with the party, and the only party in America, in favour of an aggressive policy, and, therefore, of the only policy likely to be prejudicial to the interests of England and the world. But I also want you to remember, that slavery is prejudicial to the interests of commerce, and of our own prosperity. What, let me ask, is it that we want now to raise England higher in the scale of nations? We want more customers for our manufactures, and more demands for the products of our industry. We have the skill, the capital, the raw material to manufacture double, treble, aye, quadruple the quantity we now produce, but we lack markets and customers. And how is this market to be extended and cultivated? Remember, there are no more continents to be discovered, no more nations to be found; and we must increase our market by promoting a higher civilisation and a higher social status; for, as you raise men, you create wants that help to promote commerce and extend trade. The savage and the slave require but little of the commerce of the world to supply their wants; they have no ambition, and no wants except those of a mere animal kind; and to keep them in this condition is to rob the world of some of its best customers, and society of prosperity.

Two

The success of the South means the perpetual degradation of a whole race, and the robbing England and the world of the advantage which would certainly arise from the civilisation and uplifting of the African race. thirds of the population of the South have been in times past so degraded and brutalised that their wants were "like angels' visits, few and far between;" a little shoddy, some whips, a few cat-o'-nine-tails, some tar brushes, handcuffs, chains, and bloodhounds, made up the total requirements of the South. Separation and secession meant the perpetuation of this wrong-union means its destruction: and therefore, I contend that the commercial interest of England is bound up with union and abolition. Let the poor slaves of America become free, let the "mean white" population learn to labour and to support themselves by honest industry, and then we shall have a new race of customers spring