Should a kind providence place me again upon the soil of my birth, and when there, should any American (and I hope many will) visit that soil to plead the cause of virtue and philanthropy, and strive in love to provoke us to good works, let him know that there will be one man who will uphold his right to liberty of speech, one man who will publicly and privately assert and maintain the divinity of his commission to attack sin and alleviate suffering, in every form, in every latitude, and under whatever sanction and authorities it may be cloaked and guarded. And coming on such an errand, I think I may pledge myself in behalf of my country, that he shall not be driven with a wife and little ones, from the door of a hotel in less than 36 hours after he first breathes our air – that he shall not be denounced as an incendiary, a fanatic, an emissary, an enemy, and a traitor – that he shall not be assailed with oaths and missiles, while proclaiming from the pulpit in the house of God, on the evening of a Christian Sabbath, the doctrines of 'judgment, justice, and mercy,' – that he shall not be threatened, wherever he goes, with 'tar and feathers' – that he shall not be repudiated and abused in newspapers denominated religious, and by men calling themselves Christian Ministers – that he shall not have a price set upon his head, and his house surrounded with ruffians, hired to effect his abduction – that his wife and children shall not be forced to flee from the hearth of a friend, lest they should be 'smoked out' by men in civic authority, and their paid myrmidons – that the mother and her little ones shall not find at midnight, the house surrounded by an infuriated multitude, calling with horrible execrations for the husband and the father – that his lady shall not be doomed, while in a strange land, to see her babes clinging to her with affright, exclaiming, 'the mob shan't get papa,' 'papa is good is he not? the naughty mob shan't get him, shall they?' – that he shall not, finally, be forced to quit the most enlightened and christian city of our nation, to escape the assassin's knife, and return to tell his country, that in Britain the friend of virtue, humanity, and freedom, was put beyond the protection of the laws, and the pale of civilized sympathy, and given over by professor and profane, to the tender mercies of a blood-thirsty rabble.
These extracts were from the last letter that he had written to the people of America, and which had been widely published there; and he was glad of an opportunity of now laying them before a Glasgow audience, and of having them incorporated in the proceedings of the evening, in order to show that he then forgave America, that he now forgave America. He would stand there to defend the right of Mr. Breckinridge to a fair hearing from his (Mr. Thompson's) countrymen; and stand forward as his protector, to save him from the missile that might be aimed at him, and to receive into his own bosom the dagger which might be aimed at his heart. His opponent might be anxious to know what report he (Mr. T.) made on his return to Britain of his proceedings in America. He would therefore read an extract from the minutes of the London Society for Universal Emancipation: —
George Thompson was then introduced to the Committee, and communicated at length the result of his Mission in the United States, and the present cheering aspect of the Anti-Slavery cause in that country. The following is a brief outline of his statement:
He desired to be devoutly thankful to Divine Providence for the signal preservation and help vouchsafed to him in all his labors, perils, and persecutions. He considered it a high honor to have been permitted to proclaim in the ears of a distant people the great principles held by the Society.
He sailed from this country on the 17th August, 1834, landed at New York on the 20th September, and commenced his public labors on the 1st of October. His public Lectures were continued down to the 20th October, 1835, during which period he delivered between 2 and 300 public Lectures, besides innumerable shorter addresses before Committees, Conventions, Associations, &c. &c. His audiences had invariably been overflowing, and composed from time to time of members of State Legislatures, the Heads of Colleges, Professors, Clergymen of all denominations, members of the legal profession, and the students of nearly all the Theological and Academical Institutions in New England. The result of his labors had been the multiplication of Anti-Slavery Associations to an unprecedented extent. Up to the month of May, 1835, he met with no serious or formidable opposition. At that time the National Society reported the existence of 250 auxiliaries, and its determination to appropriate during the ensuing year the sum of 30,000 dollars in the printing of papers and pamphlets to be gratuitously circulated amongst the entire white population of the country. The Southern States, previously almost silent and inoperative, soon after commenced a system of terrorism, intercepting the public conveyances, rifling the Mail Bags, scourging, mutilating or murdering all suspected of holding Anti-Slavery views, and calling with one consent upon the Free States to pass laws, abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, upon the subject of slavery. The North promptly responded to the call of the South, and in every direction through the Free States the Abolitionists became the victims of persecution, proscription and outrage. The friends of Negro freedom every where endured with a patience and spirit of christian charity, almost unexampled, the multiplied wrongs and injuries accumulated upon them. They ceased not to labor for the Holy cause they had espoused, but perseveringly pursued their course in the use of all means sanctioned by Justice, Religion, and the Constitution of their country. The result had been the rapid extension of their principles, and a vast accession of moral strength. G. T. gave an appalling account of the condition of the Southern Churches. The Presbyterians, Baptists, and Episcopal Methodist Churches were the main pillars of the system of Slavery. Were they to withdraw their countenance, and cease to participate in its administration and profit, it would not exist one year. Bishops, presiding Elders, Travelling Preachers, Local Preachers, Trustees, Stewards, Class Leaders, private Members, and other attendants in the Churches of the Episcopal Methodists, with the preachers and subordinate members of the other denominations, are, with few exceptions, Slaveholders. Many of the preachers, not merely possessing domestic Slaves, but being planters 'on a pretty extensive scale,' and dividing their time between the duties of the Pastoral Office and the driving of a gang of Negroes upon a cotton, tobacco, or rice plantation.
In the great pro-Slavery Meetings at Charleston and Richmond, the clergy of all denominations attended in a body, and at the bidding of vigilance Committees suspended their Schools for the instruction of the colored population, receiving as their reward a vote of thanks from their lay Slaveholding Brethren 'for their prudent and patriotic conduct.'
G. T. gave a most encouraging account of the present state of the Anti-Slavery cause, as nearly as it could be ascertained by letters recently received. He stated that there were now, exclusive of the Journals published by the Anti-Slavery Societies, 100 newspapers boldly advocating the principles of Abolition. Between 4 and 500 auxiliary associations, comprising 15 or 1700 Ministers of the Gospel of various denominations. G. T. stated also a number of particulars, shewing the rapid progress of correct opinions amongst the Congregationalists, Presbyterians, Methodists and Baptists, producing a Document just received from the last named body, signed by 185 Clergymen, being a reply to a letter addressed by the Baptist ministers in and near London to the Baptist Churches of America, and fully reciprocating all their sentiments on the subject of immediate and entire emancipation. The cause was proceeding with accelerated rapidity. Ten or twelve Agents of the National Society were incessantly laboring with many others employed by the State Societies, of which there were seven, viz. Kentucky, (a slave State,) Ohio, New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. Gerrit Smith, Esq. a competent authority, had stated that every week witnessed an accession to the ranks of the Abolitionists of not less than 500, in the State of New York alone, and he did not know that in all the Societies there was one intemperate or profane person. G. T. in describing the character of the persons comprising the Anti-Slavery Societies in America, stated, that they were universally men and women of religious principles, and, in most instances, of unquestioned piety. He had never known any benevolent enterprise carried forward more in dependence upon Divine Direction and Divine Aid, than the abolition cause in the United States. In all their meetings, public or social, they committed themselves to God in Prayer, and he had found that those who had been most vehemently denounced as 'Fanatics and Incendiaries' were men sound in judgment, calm in temper, deliberate in council, and prudent, though resolute, in action. The great principle on which all their Societies were founded was the essential sinfulness of slaveholding, and the consequent necessity of its immediate and entire abolition. The great means by which they had sought to accomplish their object, was the fearless publication of the truth in love, addressed to the understandings and hearts of their fellow citizens. Expediency was a doctrine they abjured. Free from a time-serving or timid spirit, they boldly relied upon the righteousness of their cause, the potency of truth, and the blessing of God. They were entitled to receive from the Abolitionists of Great Britain the warmest commendation, the fullest confidence, and most cordial co-operation.
He was happy in being able to state, that wherever the principles of immediate abolition had been fully adopted, prejudice against color had been thrown aside, and that the members of the Anti-Slavery Societies throughout the country were endeavoring by every proper means to accomplish the moral, intellectual, and spiritual elevation of the colored population.
He hoped he would yet have ample opportunities of replying to the positions assumed by his opponent. He thought he would be able to show that slavery in America was American slavery; that the Congress of America – that the Constitution of America made it an institution of the country, and therefore a national sin of America. In reference to any question as to the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, he was glad he had to do with a gentleman who knew these well, who held a high character for his Constitutional and legal attainments; and he hoped he would be able to show that Slavery in America was American Slavery – that the people in the North did not hate slavery – that they did not oppose slavery – that they were the greatest supporters of slavery in the United States – that slavery in America was a national question. But he would keep his proofs till he had time to say something along with them. Our interference was not a political interference with America, it was only a moral interference, to put an end to slavery – and he hoped the people of this country, would continue to denounce slavery in America; and at the same time he was quite willing that his opponent should denounce the idolatry of our eastern possessions.
Mr. BRECKINRIDGE said, he would take up the line of argument in which he had been proceeding; but before doing so he wished to make one observation. How did it happen – admitting all that had been said by his opponent to be true and fair, how did it happen, that the same arguments and the same principles were so differently received in different countries? How did it happen that the individual who advocated the same cause, with the same temper, and almost in the same words, in Glasgow and in Boston, should in the one place be supported by general applause, and in the other be ill-treated and despised, and even made to flee for his life? This was a question which was yet to be solved. Mr. Thompson had spoken of the Northern states as the greatest friends of slavery, forgetting that he had formerly represented the clergy as such. This was one of the principal reasons of his want of success – of what might justly be called his signal failure. He had brought unjust charges against an entire people, and had in consequence been ill-treated. Mr. Thompson had shown the better part of valor, discretion, in taking care never to visit any of the slave states. He had never seen a slaveholder, except, perhaps, he had met such an individual in a free state. At least if he had done so, it was a circumstance which was not generally known, one of those hidden things of which it was not permitted to read. Having made this observation, he (Mr. B.) would proceed to state that in the slaveholding states there was a large minority – in some, nearly one half of the population – zealously engaged in furthering the abolition of slavery. In Kentucky, slaveholding had been introduced only by a small majority. When some time after, a convention canvassed the subject, that majority was diminished, and, still at this hour in that State, in which he had been born, one of the greatest political questions agitated was whether slaveholding should be abolished or retained as an element of the constitution. A law had long ago been passed imposing a fine of six hundred dollars on whoever brought a slave into the State for sale, and three hundred dollars on whoever bought him. A fine of nine hundred dollars was thus made the penalty of introducing a slave into Kentucky as merchandise. He was sorry to have to speak of buying and selling human beings; but, to be understood, it was absolutely necessary that he should do so. In Virginia also, from which Kentucky had been in great measure peopled, not many years ago a frightful insurrection had taken place, and many cruelties had been practised – it was needless to say whether most on the side of the blacks or the whites. The succeeding legislature of that State took up the question of slavery in its length and breadth – passed a law for giving $20,000 to the Colonization Society, – and rejected only by a small majority a proposal to appropriate that fund equally to the benefit of slaves to be set free – as of those already free. He mentioned these things merely to show that there was a great and an increasing party in the south favorable to the abolition of negro slavery. In fact, in some of the Southern states the free people of color had increased faster than the whites; in Maryland alone there were 52,000 of a free colored population, all of whom, or their immediate progenitors, had been voluntarily manumitted. It was needless to say, therefore, that in the Southern states there was no anti-slavery party. There certainly was not such a party in Mr. Thompson's sense of the word; but Mr. Thompson's definition was not the correct one, as he (Mr. B.) would explain directly. Was it fair then, he would ask, to hold up to the British public, not only the people of the free states, but also this great minority in the Southern states as pro-slavery men. Let slavery be denounced, but let not the denunciation fall upon the whole American people, many of whom were doing all they could for its abolition. If Louisiana resolved on perpetuating slavery, let this be told of Louisiana. If South Carolina adhered to the system, say so of South Carolina; but do not implicate the mass of the American people, so many of whom are as much opposed to slavery as is Mr. Thompson himself. He had heard it said that the sun never sat on the British dominions. As well, then, might the British people be identified with the idolatry which prevailed in Hindostan as the Americans be identified with negro slavery. The question was not American; it existed solely between the slaveholder and the world. It was unfair, therefore, to blame the Americans as a nation: the slaveholder, and the slaveholder alone, should be blamed, let him reside where he might. Having thus disposed of the first branch of his argument, he was naturally led to explain the wonderful phenomenon of Mr. Thompson's reception in America – to give a reason why that reception was so different from what the same gentleman met with in Glasgow. Mr. Thompson had taken up the question as one of civil organization. Now the fact was, that the American nation was divided into two parties on the subject, namely, the pro-slavery, and the anti-slavery parties. One party said, let it alone; the other, and by far the most numerous party, said, something ought to be done in relation to it. In the last named class, was to be included the population of all the non-slaveholding states. He declared, in the presence of God, his conviction, that there was not a sane man in the free states who did not wish the world rid of slavery. He believed the same of a large minority in the states in which slavery existed. The pro-slavery party themselves were also divided. One section, and he rejoiced to add, a small one, called into exertion in fact only by that effervesence which had been produced by the violence of Mr. T's friends – spoke of slavery as an exceedingly good thing – as not only consistent with the law of God, but as absolutely necessary for the advancement of civilization. This party was organised within the last few years, and met the violence of Mr. Thompson's party by a corresponding violence, as a beam naturally seeks its balance. Another section of the pro-slavery party, considered slavery a great evil, and wished that it were abolished, but they did not see how this could be effected. They had been born in a state of society where it had an existence, and they could see no course to adopt but to let it cure itself. These were the two sections into which the supporters of slavery were divided. The anti-slavery party was also composed of individuals who had different views of the subject. The one class had been called Gradualists, Emancipationists, and Colonizationists. – The other were called Abolitionists. With the latter class, Mr. Thompson had identified himself. And now, as while in America, by his praises of Mr. Garrison, and all their leaders, his abuse of their opponents, and his efforts to chain the British public, hand and foot, to them and their projects, shows his continued devotion to them. He would refer to this party again, but, in the mean time, he would only say, that its members manifested far more honesty than wisdom. In 1833, the abolitionists held a Convention in Philadelphia, at which they drew up a Declaration of Independence – a declaration which he dared to say Mr. Thompson cherished as the apple of his eye; but which had been more effectual in raising mobs than ever witch was in raising the wind. The document of which he spoke announced three principles, to the promulgation of which, the members of the Convention pledged their lives and their fortunes. A number of the particulars specified, in support of which they said they would live and die, went to change materially the laws and Constitution of the United States, and yet it was pretended that this was not a political question! Their first principle was, that every human being has an instant right to be free, irrespective of all consequences; and incapable of restriction or modification. The second was like unto it, that the right of citizenship, inherent in every man, in the spot where he is born, is so perfect, that to deprive him of its exercise in any way whatever – even by emigration, under strong moral constraint, is a sin. Their third principle was, that all prejudice against color was sinful; and that all our judgments and all our feelings towards others should be regulated exclusively by their moral and intellectual worth. Mr. B. said he stated these principles from memory only – as he did most of the facts on which he relied. But he was willing to stand or fall, in both countries, upon the substantial accuracy of his statements. Mr. Breckinridge here closed his address, the period allotted to him having expired.
Mr. THOMPSON was anxious to lay before the meeting documentary testimony, in preference to any thing he could say himself. Rather than set forth his own views, as he had done on many former occasions, he wished to bring forward such documents as even his opponent would admit to be really American. He pledged himself to show that this was an American question. He was not prepared for this branch of the subject, because he had not expected that Mr. Breckinridge would exonerate America from the charge of being a slaveholding nation; nevertheless, he was perfectly ready to take it up. He would undertake to prove that the existence of slavery in the United States was the result of a compromise – that the Constitution of the United States was, in fact, based upon a compromise, in relation to this subject. At the time when the Constitution was agreed to, the then slaveholding states refused to come into what was called the confederacy of republics, unless slaveholding was permitted. At that time there were only three hundred thousand slaves in the Union; now there were two millions and a half. So much, said Mr. Thompson, for what the good and influential men of the South, spoken of by Mr. Breckinridge, had done for the abolition of slavery. Then there were three hundred thousand; now there were two million four hundred thousand. The method by which these good and influential people had gone about extirpating slavery, had been an Irish method; it had shown distinctly the extent of their zeal and usefulness. Why, setting aside their influence altogether, they might, had they been as numerous as represented by his respected opponent, have manumitted as many of their own slaves. It was said, no doubt, that the laws prevented this; but who made the laws? The child could not do what her mamma had commanded her to do, because she was tied to the mahogany table, she could only answer, when asked who tied her, that it was herself. In like manner, he could turn round on those whom his respected opponent represented, as haters of slavery. Emancipationists they wished to be called; colonizationists they ought to be called. He would ask them, what had they done? Had they not compromised every principle of justice and truth, by permitting slaveholding in their Union? Had they not even bestowed exclusive privileges on the slaveholders? Had they not bestowed on them such privileges as that, even now, they sent twenty-four or twenty-five representatives to Congress more than their proportion? His respected opponent had said this was not a national question. Why, then, send six thousand bayonets to the South for the protection of the slaveholder? Why were the American people taxed in order to maintain bayonets, blunderbusses, and artillery in the South? Not a national question! Why, then, was Missouri admitted a member of the Union – Missouri a slaveholding State, admitted by the votes of the Northern republics. Mr. Breckinridge had fought very shy of the state of the Capital, and the power of Congress to suppress the internal traffic in slaves. He (Mr. Thompson) trusted, however, that this branch of the subject would be taken up. His opponent himself, in a letter addressed to the New York Evangelist, had stated, that Congress possessed full power to suppress the internal traffic in slaves; and yet they did it not. There was in fact no question at all respecting the power of the Congress, in this matter; yet it was said the question of slavery was not national. The people of the Northern states, – the slavery-hating, liberty-loving people of the Northern states had said they would fight shoulder to shoulder with the Slaveholders of the South, should the slaves dare to rise and say they were men, and after all this, it was asserted that this was not a national question. Mr. Breckinridge had said, that he (Mr. Thompson) got all his information at second hand. He might have told the reason why; he knew, however, that such a revelation would have been awful. He knew that pious men, advocates of the cause of abolition had been hanged, butchered, their backs ploughed up by Presbyterian elders; and if such had been done towards natives of New England, what could a stranger such as he have expected? He (Mr. T.) had, it seems, got all at second hand. He would tell the meeting where he had obtained some of his information. From Mr. Breckinridge himself; and he must say, that sounder or juster views respecting slavery – or a more complete justification of the mission in which he (Mr. T.) had been so lately engaged, could scarcely be met with. This was evidence which he had no fear could be ruled out of court. It was that of the friend and defender of America. Mr. T. then read the following passage from a speech delivered by Mr. Breckinridge: —
What, then, is slavery? for the question relates to the action of certain principles on it, and to its probable and proper results; what is slavery as it exists among us? We reply, it is that condition enforced by the laws of one half of the states of this confederacy, in which one portion of the community, called masters, is allowed such power over another portion called slaves; as
1. To deprive them of the entire earnings of their own labor, except only so much as is necessary to continue labor itself, by continuing healthful existence, thus committing clear robbery.
2. To reduce them to the necessity of universal concubinage, by denying to them the civil rights of marriage; thus breaking up the dearest relations of life, and encouraging universal prostitution.
3. To deprive them of the means and opportunities of moral and intellectual culture, in many states making it a high penal offence to teach them to read; thus perpetuating whatever of evil there is that proceeds from ignorance.
4. To set up between parents and their children an authority higher than the impulse of nature and the laws of God; which breaks up the authority of the father over his own offspring, and, at pleasure, separates the mother at a returnless distance from her child; thus abrogating the clearest laws of nature; thus outraging all decency and justice, and degrading and oppressing thousands upon thousands of beings, created like themselves, in the image of the most high God! This is slavery as it is daily exhibited in every slave state.
Here, continued Mr. T., is slavery acknowledged to be clear robbery, and yet it is not to be instantly abolished! Universal concubinage and prostitution, which must not immediately be put an end to! Oh, these wicked abolitionists, who seek to put an immediate close to such a state of things. What an immensity of good have the emancipationists of the South, as they wish to be called, of the colonizationists as they ought to be called, done during their fifty years labor, when this is yet left for the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge to say. Dear, delightful, energetic men! Truly, if this is all they have been able to effect it is time that the work were committed to abler hands. Mr. Thompson then read an extract from the Philadelphia declaration. Mr. Breckinridge had called it a declaration of independence, but it was only a declaration of sentiments; —
We have met together for the achievement of an enterprise, without which, that of our fathers is incomplete, and which, for its magnitude, solemnity, and probable results upon the destiny of the world, as far as transcends theirs, as moral truth does physical force.
In purity of motive, in earnestness of zeal, in decision of purpose, in intrepidity of action, in steadfastness of faith, in sincerity of spirit, we would not be inferior to them.
Their principles led them to wage war against their oppressors, and to spill human blood like water, in order to be free. Ours forbid the doing of evil that good may come, and lead us to reject, and entreat the oppressed to reject the use of all carnal weapons, for deliverance from bondage – relying solely upon those which are spiritual, and mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds.
Their measures were physical resistance – the marshalling in arms – the hostile array – the mortal encounter. Ours shall be such only as the opposition of moral purity to moral corruption – the destruction of error by the potency of truth – the overthrow of prejudice by the power of love – and the abolition of slavery by the spirit of repentance.
Their grievances, great as they were, were trifling in comparison with the wrongs and sufferings of those for whom we plead. Our fathers were never slaves – never bought and sold like cattle – never shut out from the light of knowledge and religion – never subjected to the lash of brutal task masters.
But those, for whose emancipation we are striving, constituting at the present, at least one-sixth part of our countrymen, – are recognised by the laws, and treated by their fellow-beings as marketable commodities – as goods and chattels – as brute beasts; are plundered daily of the fruits of their toil, without redress; – really enjoy no constitutional or legal protection from licentious and murderous outrages upon their persons – are ruthlessly torn asunder – the tender babe from the arms of its frantic mother – the heart-broken wife from her weeping husband – at the caprice or pleasure of irresponsible tyrants; – for the crime of having a dark complexion – they suffer the pangs of hunger, the infliction of stripes, and the ignominy of brutal servitude. They are kept in heathenish darkness by laws expressly enacted to make their instruction a criminal offence.
These are the prominent circumstances in the condition of more than two millions of our people, the proof of which may be found in thousands of indisputable facts, and in the laws of the slaveholding states.
Hence we maintain: —
That in the view of the civil and religious privileges of this nation, the guilt of its oppression is unequalled by any other on the face of the earth – and, therefore,
That it is bound to repent instantly, to undo the heavy burden, to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free.
We further maintain: —
That no man has a right to enslave or imbrute his brother – to hold or acknowledge him, for one moment, as a piece of merchandise – to keep back his hire by fraud – or to brutalize his mind by denying him the means of intellectual, social, and moral improvement.
The right to enjoy liberty is inalienable. To invade it is to usurp the prerogative of Jehovah. Every man has a right to his own body – to the products of his own labor – to the protection of law – and to the common advantages of society. It is piracy to buy or steal a native African, and subject him to servitude. Surely the sin is as great to enslave an American as an African.
Therefore, we believe and affirm: —
That there is no difference in principle, between the African slave-trade and American slavery.
That every American citizen who retains a human being in involuntary bondage, as his property is (according to Scripture) a man-stealer.
That the slaves ought instantly to be set free, and brought under the protection of law.
That if they had lived from the time of Pharaoh down to the present period, and had been entailed through successive generations, their right to be free could never have been alienated, but their claims would have constantly risen in solemnity.
That all those laws which are now in force, admitting the right of slavery, are therefore, before God, utterly null and void; being an audacious usurpation of the Divine prerogative, a daring infringement on the law of nature, a base overthrow of the very foundations of the social compact, a complete extinction of all the relations, endearments, and obligations of mankind, and a presumptuous transgression of all the holy commandments – and that, therefore, they ought to be instantly abrogated.
He would ask if there was any thing here different from what he had read from his respected opponent? The sentiments were the same, though not given in Mr. Breckinridge's strong and glowing language. Mr. Breckinridge's description of slavery was even more methodical, clearer, and better arranged; he was therefore inclined to prefer it to the other. He would, however, ask Mr. Breckinridge not to persevere in speaking of the violence, as he called it, of the abolitionists, only in general terms. He hoped he would point out the instances to which he alluded, and not take advantage of them, because they were a handful and odious. They were not singular in being called odious. Noah was called odious by the men of his day, because he pointed out to them the wickedness of which they were guilty. Every reformer had been called odious, and he trusted to be always among those who were deemed odious by slaveholders and their apologists. He repeated, that he wished Mr. Breckinridge to forsake general allegations, and to specify time and place when he brought forward his charges. The time was passed, when, in Glasgow, vague assertions could produce any effect. The time was not, indeed, distant when even here the friends of negro freedom had been deemed odious – when they were a mere handful, met in a room in the Black Bull Inn. But from being odious they had become respectable, and from respectable triumphant, in consequence of their having renounced expediency, and taken their stand on the broad principles of truth and justice.