eads him to the habitual use of them. He is an author, and as
no copy-right law secures for him from this country a consideration for
his writings, he is not only independent of us, but naturally hates
every thing American. He is the representative of Edinburgh; it is his
cue to decry our slavery, and in doing so he may safely indulge the
malignity of his temper, his indignation against us, and his capacity
for railing. He has suffered once, for being in advance of his time in
favor of abolition, and he does not intend that it shall be forgotten,
or his claim passed over, to any crumb which may now be thrown to the
vociferators in the cause. If he does not know that the statements he
has made respecting the slaveholders of this country are vile and
atrocious falsehoods, it is because he does not think it worth his while
to be sure he speaks the truth, so that he speaks to his own purpose.

"Hic niger est, hunc tu, Romane caveto."

Such exhibitions as he has made, may draw the applause of a British
House of Commons, but among the sound and high-minded thinkers of the
world they can only excite contempt and disgust.

But you are not content with depriving us of all religious feelings. You
assert that our slavery has also "demoralized the Northern States," and
charge upon it not only every common violation of good order there, but
the "Mormon murders," the "Philadelphia riots," and all "the
exterminating wars against the Indians." I wonder that you did not
increase the list by adding that it had caused the recent inundation of
the Mississippi, and the hurricane in the West Indies--perhaps the
insurrection of Rebecca, and the war in Scinde. You refer to the law
prohibiting the transmission of abolition publications through the mail,
as proof of general corruption! You could not do so, however, without
noticing the late detected espionage over the British post office by a
minister of state. It is true, as you say, it "occasioned a general
outburst of national feeling"--from the opposition; and a "Parliamentary
inquiry was instituted"--that is, moved, but treated quite cavalierly.
At all events, though the fact was admitted, Sir James Graham yet
retains the Home Department. For one, I do not undertake to condemn him.
Such things are not against the laws and usages of your country. I do
not know fully what reasons of state may have influenced him and
justified his conduct. But I do know that there is a vast differen