in idleness by the Custom-House, and in part distributed among the inhabitants, nominally as apprentices, but really as slaves. They were altogether the lowest order of Helots in Antigua. By a despatch from the British ministry the Governor of Antigua was directed to apprize all these Africans that they should "be permitted to live in the colonies precisely on the same conditions as any other free persons of African birth and descent, so long as their own continued good conduct may render it unnecessary to resort to any measures of coercion." And certificates of liberty were ordered to be given to all "who should either have served out their apprenticeship, or who, uot being apprenticed, should be reported capable of earning their own subsistence; and that none should hereafter be apprenticed who were not incapable of maintaining themselves by their own labor." In pursuance of these instructions the Governor of Antigua set free 371 of these people in a single day. This was in December 1828. On the 25th May 1829, the Governor Sir Patrick Ross, says in his official despatch, "It affords me much satisfaction to have the honor of reporting that during a period of five months which has expired since they were set at large, I have not received a single complaint against them; nor has one of them been committed by a magistrate for the most trifling offence. There has not, to my knowledge, been any application from them on the score of poverty, and they appear to be in general, industriously occupied in providing for their own livelihood." So well satisfied were the British ministry with this experiment, that they proceeded upon it to liberate all the slaves belonging to the crown in the various colonies-and with similar success. But the cream of the matter is, that the colonial agents in England, seeing that this satisfactory report was likely to lead to further consequences, wrote home to the Antigua legislature that the statement of Sir Patrick Ross must by all means be disproved. The legislature was roused to the floodtide of slaveholding wrath, and after going through a mock investigation, resolved that the liberated Africans were, in spite of Sir Patrick Ross, a set of idle, worthless, profligate vagabonds! These resolutions, unbacked by a single fact or document, they transmitted to the ministry, and were by them reminded, that they had been authorized by the very instructions for the liberation of those people, to remove to Trinidad any of them who within seven years, "should be convicted of theft, or any other offence against the peace of society, or should be found seeking subsistence as a common beggar or vagrant, or should become chargeable on any parochial or public rates, except in case of sickness

or other inevitable accident." Yet the Antigua legislature had not taken measures for the removal of a single one of these vicious vagabonds. Nor had any case occurred in which such measures could be taken, up to April 25th, 1832!!

On this one fact we are willing to plant ourselves, and defy all the slanderers of our colored brethren in the universe. If 371 poòr, ignorant, ill-assorted relics of the "middle passage" suddenly set adrift. could get a living in the very teeth of a legislature of furious slaveholders, who dares say that there is a single plantation in the United States where slaves are too lazy, ignorant or stupid, to get a living if fair wages were offered them? Who dares say that the millions whose toil now supports their masters and fills the national coffers, would not, if permitted, take care of themselves?

IT is said, "the principles of the abolitionists may be true, but how can they ever effect their object? Slaveholders will not listen to argument. The whole North combined, would have no constitutional power to abolish slavery in a single slave state. Why then organize a force which can have no power to act?"

What is the meaning of that mob dragging off a broken printing press? What is the meaning of the crowd around yonder church, swearing and throwing stones at a peaceful lecturer? What is the meaning of the terror and indignation of slaveholders at the increase of abolitionists in the United States? These things certainly do not mean that slaveholders are afraid of losing their character by the misrepresentations of abolition presses and lecturers. If that were the fear, they have a hundred presses and lecturers to one. Nothing in the world would be easier than to overwhelm the abolition calumniators with disgrace by publishing the whole truth. Almost all the

commercial and political papers at the North, to say nothing of their

own, and the majority of our clergy of all denominations, are ready and anxious to defend them. Truth is great and will prevail, every body knows. Suppose a little spiteful periodical is set up to oppose some fair and honorable business; how soon it goes down! Nobody flounces; nobody raises a mob. The party attacked simply gives the public the truth, through the ordinary papers, and the assailant soon descends to the land of forgetfulness. Or, the same thing is calmly done in a court of law. Now, if the slaveholders feared mis representation or calumny, they would have taken this course, or in structed their friends, the mobocrats, to take it.

Again, the slaveholders do not fear that printing and lecturing on slavery at the North will excite their slaves to rebellion. If they did, they would not copy column after column of the abolition papers into their own. Says one of their own papers, the United States Telegraph, "We do not believe that the abolitionists intend, nor could they, if they would, excite the slaves to insurrection." When a man has friends to fight his battles for him, there is less danger of his fighting himself. The slaveholders of Jamaica charged the last insurrection of the slaves in that island upon the abolitionists; but how did it turn out? It was found to be undeniable that the insurrection was caused by the slaveholders themselves refusing to take any measures for the ultimate relief of the slaves, and their threat that they would transfer their allegiance from Great Britain to America, provided par liament should interfere in behalf of the slaves!

Again, the slaveholders do not fear a physical attack from the North-a liberty crusade. They are too courageous for that. Besides, if they did fear it, they would be afraid of hastening it by these mobs. What, then, is the reason why slaveholders excite their friends and allies to destroy abolition presses, and interrupt abolition lecturers? It is this, they know that abolition papers and lectures will convince people that slavery is sinful; and when that is done, they can hold slaves no longer, consistently with their own reputation and peace of mind.

Hear what the great apostle of slavery, Gen. Duff Green, says about this matter:

"We are of those who believe that the South has nothing to fear from a civil war. We do not believe that the abolitionists intend, nor could they, if they would, excite the slaves to insurrection. The danger of this is remote. We believe that we have most to fear from the organized action upon the CONSCIENCES AND FEARS OF

THE SLAVEHOLDERS THEMSELVES; from the insinuation of their dangerous heresies into our schools, our pulpits, and our domestic circles. It is only by alarming the consciences of the weak and feeble, and diffusing among OUR OWN PEOPLE a morbid sensibility on the question of slavery, that the abolitionists can accomplish their object. Preparatory to this, they are now laboring to saturate the non-slaveholding states with the belief, that slavery is a 'sin against God;' that the national compact involves the non-slaveholders in that sin; and that it is their duty to toil and suffer, that our country may be delivered from, what they term, ‘its blackest stain, its foulest reproach, its deadliest curse." "

Does Gen. Duff Green, or any other slaveholder, or any other man of sense, regard this preparation as vain and idle? Do the mobocrats themselves regard the printing and lecturing of the abolitionists as vain and inefficacious? Certainly not. If they did, they would endeavor so to persuade their principals at the South. The mobocrats, who destroyed Mr. Birney's press in Cincinnati, were men of the first standing in society; men who well understand the power of the press. They well knew that their enterprise was peculiarly delicate and dangerous. They knew that the mob they were cheering on, might soon turn its fury upon themselves. But their Southern trade was in danger. Something must be done. And they ventured on a step which will damn them to everlasting infamy. Would they have done so if they had believed Mr. Birney was laboring against slavery all in vain? No; they knew that every number of the Philanthropist made slaveholding less reputable, and hastened its downfall. They knew it was troubling the consciences of their Southern customers. They saw no hope of participating in the gains of slavery, except by trampling out the fire while they could.

Now, we have the clearly expressed opinion of the slaveholders themselves, and of their intelligent and humble servants, the mobocrats, that the presses and the lecturers, if they are suffered to go on, will overthrow slavery by acting upon the consciences of slaveholders, and that they have very properly commenced the work at the North. The question remains, whether this course of measures can be put down. It evidently cannot be put down by law, for the very reason why mobs are resorted to is, that the law is insufficient. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and of the press. Can the abolitionists be put down by mobs? It would seem to be the opinion of very wise men that they can be. A great many mobs have been excited, and always by distinguished men. Yet the event has, thus far, remarkably failed to prove the wisdom of the authors. In every