the same. The number of sailors impressed was not so great, nor their condition on board the British fleet so deplorable, (they fared as the British sailors did) as to make a resort to war indispensable, leaving out of view the rights involved. But had we given up the right of search and impressment, who can tell to what extent it might have gone? Who can tell how many thousands might have been torn from house and home and all that was dear, and made to spend their lives in fighting the battles of England?

We might refer to the political questions now agitated with so much earnestness, between the national and state governments, and their adherents. Rights are the bone of contention. And they are contended for with a zeal which proves that their worth is understood. It is seen, and felt, and avowed, that with our rights is connected everything that is dear-that if they be lost, all is lost-if they be saved, all is safe.

That our rights are more important than anything else of which we can be deprived-that we may receive a deeper injury in our rights, than in any other way, (and of course may do a greater injury to another in his rights) is on the whole, well understood by the mass of the people. They have been pretty well schooled on this matter.

Now to see a professor of religion who is thus alive to the worth of rights; thus alive to the deep and irreparable injury which he may receive from that quarter; and who professes obedience to the command of his Lord, to "Love his neighbour as himself"-"To do in all things as he would be done by,"-to see him, in applying this rule to the case of slavery, pass over the whole matter of rights, the very part where he is most alive in his own case-the very part where the deepest wound may be given-the greatest injustice committed,-and busy himself about the quantity of bread, and meat, and clothing, which will satisfy the rule-what shall we say of it! "What man seeing this, and having human feelings, does not blush, and hang his head to think himself a man."

What were the rights we were like to lose at the commencement of the revolutionary war? and to prevent

1

The right of not
And what were
The rights of

which we entered into that fearful strife? being taxed but with our own consent. the rights contended for in the last war? not being subject to search and impressment. These rights were, in the view of the people at large, worth contending for unto blood. The great bulk of professing Christians thought so too, and gave ample proof that they approved of the war, as right and necessary, by contributing their part to support it; and many of them by treading the tented field and mingling in the strife of battle.

Now, what are these rights compared with the rights of which the slave is deprived? They are a mere nothing! and how can the Christian slave-holder say, he obeys Christ, he does as he would be done by ?"

But it will, perhaps, be said, the slaves don't know their rights; they have never possessed them and can't estimate their loss! Now passing the generosity and justice of withholding from a fellow creature his rights, because he is ignorant of them, or unable to assert them, I would like to know how it is reconciled with the morality of the gospel? what part of the teaching of Christ or his apostles, gives the shadow of authority for a course of conduct of this kind? How can it be reconciled with the rule of "doing as we would be done by ?"

Apply the principle to the case of property. An orphan has a right to property; but owing to some untoward circumstance in which he has been placed in infancy, and kept ever afterwards, he knows but little, if anything about his rights. The whole matter is so situated, that while his right is good, his neighbour can keep him from the possession of it, and, to a great degree, ignorant of his right to it, and destitute of the information needful to make the best use of it, were he in any way to get it in posses

sion.

What now would we say of the honesty of that neighbour, who would take advantage in such a case? What would we say of his excuse," he does not know the property is his;" "he does not know his rights ;"" he can make no estimate of his loss." And how much would he mend the matter in the eyes of every honest man were he

to say, the person whose property I hold, not only does not know that it is his, or at least I can hold it in spite of him; but he is too ignorant to make a good use of it, if he had it; when it was notorious that he had kept him in ignorance, as a means of keeping him from his rights? And were this defrauder and oppressor to plead the example of others who acted in the same way; were he to plead that every man with a white face in his neighbourhood, treated every one with a yellow or a black face, as he did the orphan boy, how much would he help his cause? Were he to profess the religion of the Lord Jesus, and take his seat at the sacramental table, while he still held on to the wages of unrighteousness, what would we say of his profession? what would we say of his religion? Suppose he were heard to say, and with great self-complacency, I am good to the orphan boy; I have, it is true, stripped him of his all, but I am not cruel to him. I give him bread and meat when he passes, and at times make him presents of my old clothes."

66

How would public indignation brand such conduct. How would the report of it spread from Dan to Beersheba; and how would his name, blotted with disgrace, be handed down to posterity.

Now, what is the loss of property compared with the loss of liberty? what is poverty compared with slavery? and on what page of Scripture is the rule of justice, of doing as we would be done by, suspended, when we meet with a man with a black face?

85,539

COLOURED PEOPLE IN THE UNITED STATES.

According to five Official Enumerations.

Mortality lessens in the world as civilization and improvement advances. In England,

In 1700, the deaths were as 1 in 25

In London from 1700 to

1750, deaths were as 3 to 2; from 1750 to 1800, as 5 to 4; since 1800, as 12 to 15.

In Sweden, from 1755 to 1775, deaths were 1 in 35; from 1775 to 1795, as 1 in 37.

Of 100 new born infants in 1780, there died in two years 50; at present, 38.

In 1780, died before ten years old, 55

At present,

Lived in 1780, to 50 years,

Live now to 50,

Lived in 1780, to 60,

Live now to 60,

A careful examination of the several wards of Paris, proved that the greater the proportion of poor in any ward, the greater the proportion of deaths.

This will appear from the following tables. Table I. gives the proportion of houses not taxed, on account of the poverty of the people. Table II. gives the proportion of deaths in each ward.