raasfflsSw^ ¦* ~ '¦ ¦¦'.¦'¦¦¦;¦

Cbgt.67o

/s^^

CHARACTER

SOUTHERN STATES OP AMERICA.

Xj B T T B I?.

FEIEND WHO HAD JOINED THE SOUTHERN INDEPENDENCE
ASSOCIATION,
BY F. W. NEWMAN,
LATE PEOFESSOE AT UNITEESITY COLLEGE, LONDON.

MANCHESTER:
UNION AND EMANCIPATION SOCIETY'S DEPOT,
51, PICCADILLY.

[The following pages are a part of what was really elicited by a friend's letter,
which is no fiction. In the attempt to wound my friend as little as possible, I
re-wrote my reply from different points of view so often, that material for a little
book was produced. My actual answer was different from this: but it- has
seemed to me, that in the epistolary form, which was genuine, the matter
appropriate to the public ears gains somewhat in liveliness. — F. W. N.]

Cbgi.&TO

CHARACTER

SOUTHEKN STATES OF AMERICA.

My Deae 
I take in good part the uncomplimentary epithets wHoh you
apply to me and others with whom I have acted. I only wish you had so
pointed them that I could know what in particular it is that you censure. At
present you give me no chance of profiting by them. I approve of strong words
when they are sti'ictly in point. I am not aware that in this controversy I have
myself ever used a strong word without giving reasons for it, except where I
have supposed the facts to be so notorious and their colour so confessed that
the time of discussion is past and reasoning superfluous. ¦ It may he that the
younger generation have to learn afresh things long since decided. I confess
I have found that persons who expressed agreement with everything else which
I wrote iu a certain letter thought me extravagant in comparing the Slave
Power to Thugs, cannibals, and buccaneers. Since this is probably the strongest
thing which I have said, I ask leave, against your vague imputation that I
"fanatically misrepresent," to assign some justification of those words.

Buccaneers.
"Buccaneer" has its equivalent in the modem term "filibuster," and fora long
series of years the latter term has been systematically applied to the Southerners
hy the whole English press, and most emphatically by the Tory- Whig press, and
hy the " Times." The facts are before the world. The greatest example of
buccaneering known to the present generation is the seizure of Texas. Ameri
can colonists, who had been peaceably admitted into a free province of Mexico,
schemed to subject the country to the curse of slavery. They got up, first
brigandage, and then war, by aid of sympathizers iu the South ; and — with the
connivance of the President, — actually conquered the province, (a. region fuUy
adequate for four States,) and planted slavery anew, where Mexico had rooted it
up. After this, they voted that Texas should enter the Union; and the intrigues
of the Southern party accepted the gift, against the indignant protests of the
free party of the North. The Mexican war which followed, politically was not
worse than our Asiatic wars, hut abaut as bad. It was nevertheless entered

4:
into (as I understand) by" a breach of the constitution, and against the utmost
effort of all that party of the North whioh is now in power; and it aimed
avowedly at the extension of slavery, which cannot be said of us, in our worst
wickedness. Victorious in this war, the South endeavoured, but failed in the
endeavour, to establish slavery in California. After this came the buccaneering
attacks on Cuba and Nicaragua, the ferocious marauding against Kanzas, also the
Ostend congress of the American ministers in Europe, which but a few years back
was accepted by all England as nothing short of an apotheosis of unlimited
" filibustering." This would suffice to justify my comparing the Slave Power to
buccaneers. But I must not stop there. All.their leading men, all who are the
soul and impetus of this secession, are avowed defenders of the African slave
trade. Their President rejects with indignant disdain the idea of its being
morally wrong, and avows that it is a mere question of time and of prudence.
The Vice-President emphatically points out the uselessness of lands which
they cannot people, and that to obtain new masees of the African race is matter
of vital importance. Their (foreignj Secretary of State, Mr. Judah Benjamin,
has written to his agent, the Hon. L. Q. C. Lamar, the commissioner at St.
Petersburg, strictly prohibiting any treaty -stipulations against the African
Slave Trade. The celebrated writer, the Hon. L. W. Spratt, author ofthe
" Philosophy of Secession," and the most influential literary politician of the
South, insists that that trade is morally, commercially and politically, of the
first necessity ; and believes that the South may snap its fingers at Europe,
because we shall pocket our profits from the trade and our consciences together.
(I hope you are not willing to give him new grounds for his confidence.^
The go-ahead Georgian statesmen are as eager for the trade as is their greatest
intellect, Mr Stephens. All the interests ofall the States, which are not already
wholly conquered, are for it, except Virginia, who seceded last, and largely
under military compulsion. It is therefore certain, that if the remnant could
succeed in establishing their independence, they would quickly re-open that
trade, which is the worst and most wicked form of buccaneering that has yet
existed "on earth. Mr. W. H. Russell, the celebrated correspondent of the
" Times," — who was sent to America to write the North down and the South up,
as soon as it pleased his masters to adopt that line, — was not willing to allow
the letters which appeared in the "Times," as his, to speak for him longer than 18
months. After they had done their work in its columns, hepublished his own Diary,
which depicts the Southerners as bloody treacherous barbarians. Compared
with his account of their truculence, the word buccaneer seems to me feeble.
But I now particularly refer to him as testifying, that in case the South should
establish its independence, the re-opening of the African slave trade would be
an inevitable necessity. For even if the planters were averse, " the poor whites
who have won the fight will demand their share of the spoils." They will have
cheap slaves from Africa "in spite of their masters, unless a stronger power than
the Slave States prevent the accomplishment of their wishes." He adds, that
he fears few people in England are aware of " the complications " which would
arise. This means that England herself would have to enter into war against
the South. But with what avail ?

Thugs.
Next, as to Thuggee : what was it ? The Thugs were a religious community,
which with plausible and amiable manners combined one fanatical and pesti
lential doctrine, — that, after all due religious solemnities, they had a divine
commission to inveigle, lasso, murder, and plunder innocent travellers on the
high road. The English Government had to break through all lawyerlike scru
ples, and invent totally new law aud new legal proceedings, before it could put
down this monstrosity. The Southern Confederacy has all the fanaticism and
all the self-complacency of the Thugs, while it is vastly more dangerous to the
world. It is not satisfied with having forced slavery upon Texas : it clutches
at the Territories for slavery, and at new slaves from Africa for the Territories.

5
Which of us, — what man that has the heart of a free man, — would not rather be
strangled on the spot by a Thug, than caught alive at the bidding of an
American, carried to America, and destined there to propagate " chattels" or
flogged to death if we refuse ? If I were to go on a slave-trading " venture," our
law would pronounce me a felon, and (I rather think) would hang me. What
more would it do to a Thug ? Yet the leaders of the South, whom you and your
Association desire to introduce as ambassadors to our Queen, and to establish
as moral equals to the representatives of other civilized powers ; — these leaders
justify and panegyrize, as christian and civilizing, that trade, which with us is
felony. Cannilals.
As to " cannibals," these seem to me, in comparison with the Slave Power,
only rude and almost innocent barbarians. They do not make war upon people
in order to eat them ; but, having for other reasons killed men in battle, think
they may as well eat them. The practice probably springs from and tends to
ferocity. You may be sure that I do not patronize it. But I would rather
patronize it than patronize the South. I would rather have a daughter killed
and eaten by savages, than have her submitted to the brutality of a slavemaster
or sold into prostitution. If an Aulus Virginius stabbed a daughter to save her
from this fate, I could not blame him.

Sources of Information.
You express disapprobation of my speaking with such confidence con
cerning " foreign events," which are only " known to us by newspapers." If
newspapers were the sole means of knowledge, yet newspapers contain a variety of
public documents, which editors even in their worst mood do not forge, and, in the
case of the American events, cannot garble by mistranslation. Such documents
would in fact decide the whole question ; and in passing I observe, that you
are bound to explain why your Association is just as shy of quoting them, as
is the whole press of England, in so fai' as it sides with the South. ..But .there
never was such a concentration of light on any public subject as on the
character and plots of the Slave Power; whioh have been notorious to all
Europe, and denounced on all sides as infamous, until April, 1861; when the
London press with few exceptions went right round in one week, and put
Darkness for Light, and Light for Darkness. lam "headstrong" enough to
resist this, even if you tell me that all the aristocracy and all the gentry approve
it, and that the London Clubs dictated this course.
As materials for judgment, we have: 1, The Slave Codes ; 9, The speeches
and sentences of slave judges; 3, The speeches of senators in Congress, and
governors of States, and, more recently, decisive speeches of the President and
Vice-President of the South, besides the writings of the Hon. Mr. Spratt,
which have nearly the weight of ofiieial statements; 4, Recently, we have also
the manifestos of the States on seceding ; 5, The articles of Southern newspapers,
which not only testify to the love of freedom in the North (which you prepos
terously deny), but display an agony of indignation at the thought of a com
promise which should look to a termination of slavery; C, Public events, such
as were developed in the Fugitive Slave Law, and the buccaneerings to whioh I
have referred ; 7, The behaviour of the Presidents in the wars of Texas and of
Kanzas ; 8, The diplomatic action of the Slave Power, and its perpetual hec
toring against England; 9, The dastardly attempt to murder Mr. Sumner in the
Senate, for having spoken a speech from his heart, as was a senator's duty; for
which assault the rufiian received compliments from the South, without one
whisper of disapproval ; 10, The notoriety of Lynch -law, virtually a Southern
institution, and confessedly a necessary ^adjunct vital io the slave system ; 11,

Advertisements concerning Fugitive Slaves, which detail their various brand
ings and mutilations, and offer reward for bringing them dead or alive. To the
great] frequency of such brandings, wounds, or marks of the teeth of hounds,
several Northern Generals have borne emphatic testimony; 13, The phenomena
of the Dismal Swamp, the existence of a class of men called slave catchers, and
the maintenance of dogs expressly trained to hunt fugitives ; 13, The testimony
of unbiassed English travellers, of Southern refugees, and of other men, either
Southerners or of the Southern party. I may indeed justly say, that it is_ far
easier for a boy to understand the Slave Power to the bottom, than for the wisest
man among us to understand an English ministry. For, while with us dissimu
lation is an official duty, and the policy of a cabinet is an obscure and ever
shifting compromise between the essentially diverse sentiments of the indi
viduals; the Slave Power has but one sentiment, and one motive for political
existence, namely, the intensifying of slavery, whioh at once gives them an
energetic unity of action, and a habit of unlimited frankness. Each sees his
own feelings and views reflected from all the rest; and confident in support of
his order, disdains the judgment of mankind. Some are refined in expression ;
others coarse, to the point of brutality : but all are pre-eminently clear, and per
fectly in harmony, except that the " Breeding" States have an interest opposed
to the African Slave Trade. Your difiiculty as to our materials of judgment is
therefore purely imaginary.
AVhat can be more deliciously clear than the last and celebrated sentence
of the Supreme Court, while in the hands of judges appointed by the Slave
Power ? — ."Coloured men have no rights, whioh the white man is bound to respect!"
No one can misunderstand that. The thrill of horror caused in the hearts of the
North by this sentence, energetically aided to Mr. Lincoln's- election. You can
not think that slave-owners gratuitously covet the execrations of mankind.
When they enunciate such a piinciple, it is not that it may remain a dead letter,
but that it may be a frightful reality. In fact, had they not long acted upon it,
they could not have enunciated it.
Slave Breeding for the Market.
I shall first advert to oris application of this principle, that which concerns
the Inter-State Slave Trade, — a trade, which Mr. Macaulay, speaking as a leading
Whig in 1845, before a Parliament very intolerant of fanatical exaggeration, — ^pro
nounced to be more odious and demoralizing than the African slave trade
itself. (He deliberately re-printed it in 1851.) By the laws of competition no
one can carry on a thriving business in breeding niggers for the market, unless —
1, The rights of mothers be utterly trampled under foot, and (to borrow
Mrs. Stowe's phrase,) babies be sold by the pound ; 3, The right of chastity
be utterly denied to every slave woman, and the riglit of rape be sharply
conceded to the master; 3, All right of a slave to a wife or children, as well
as to property or to a native soil, be totally exploded ; 4, The unlimited use
of the whip be given to the master. Every one of these things is not only a
stern reality, (and if you do not know them, I must say it is you that are ignorant,
not I that misrepresent,) but tUey are even so cherished that no man in the
South could publicly speak against any of them, without being tarred and
feathered, or otherwise violently driven out.
Did you never read au account of a slave auction iu Richmond or Washington?
of the heartrending scenes when families are separated; families of those, who,
bereft of every other enjoyment and relief in life, solace their weariness, their
pains, their helplessness, by one and only one pleasure, the sweet tenderness
of mother and cliikl, brother and sister, or sometimes by that contraband
indulgence, love betvv-een husband and wife? Compared to the agonies of
separation, the hard-hearted rudenesses of the auction appear slight. Y^et I
cannot permit myself to think that t/ou will make little of the profane indignity
to human nature, which puts a man or woman on the block, permits bidders to

come and examine their parts, puU open their mouths, and thrust fingers in to
feel their teeth, fumble in their bosoms, pinch their muscles, and feel a young
woman as a butcher feels a lamb. Yet all this is asnothing ; for aU. is swallowed
up in the agony of parting. Even the threat of selling a woman to the
plantations of the South subdues her, as might the threat of Siberian exile;
overpowers her modesty, if she has any; while the dim certainty, branded into
the heart of every mother, that this fate is destined, ere long, for her beloved
children, is as a shadow of hell, oppressing the whole heart through the whole
life. The right of rape practically acts in two different ways. On the majority of
slavewomen it induces a total recklessness as to female honour. They are taught
by precept and examxJe, that it is their duty to have a child once a year, and it
matters not who is the father. To this degradation they learn to sul^mit, though
they cannot put off maternal feelings, and escape pangs of anguish, when one
child after another is rent away from them. But there is another still moro
piteous case, — that of mulattos, mestizos, quadroons, quinteroons, &c. who have
been reared delicately and trained modestly.* With inhumanity unparallelled,
the American code has pronounced the mixed blood to be slaves. One drop of
the African is held to pollute an ocean of European blood ; and the master's
licentiousness, instead of conducing to freedom, as in Cuba, does but breed for
him a peculiarly valuable stock of cattle. A man's beautiful daughter, reared iri
his house, may be sold to men's lust through her parents' death or pecuniary
difficulties. If she be forced to incest by her father or brother, the law justifies
it: and however rare this last enormity, no Southerner would dare to propose to
forbid it. " The slave has no rights whioh the white man is bound to respect,"
is a summaTy warning against all Utopian ideas of amendment. Even if we had
not, what we have, actual oases in point, showing the execrable nature of the in
fliction on beautiful quadroons, what say you to a law which justifies u, man in
whipping a woman to death, because she will not submit to rape ? Mrs. Beecher
Stowe, in her Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin (a book with which your Association
seems to be unacquainted), relates an actual case of Delia Clarke, a beautiful
quinteroon, her mother being a quadroon, and her father a Scotchman, who
married as he thought and intended, legitimately, and on the promise that she
would be made free. But nine children were nevertheless kept in slavery, Delia
among them. Delia was pious, and a member of the Baptist church ; but was
sold, apparently for her beauty. In sight of her brother and mother, she was
brutally whipped, because she would not submit to her new master's lust. When
nothing could conquer her resolution, he sold her to the brothels of New Orleans.
No thanks to him nor to the slave code, that her beauty attracted a Frenchman,
who took her to Mexico, emancipated and married her. Does a Power which
maintains such laws deserve to he shielded by the collective patronage or force of
Europe /rom extinction by any greater Power which will take the trouble ? Is it
not strictly an enemy of mankind? Europe does not espouse the King of
Ashantee, or cherish the political existence of Dahomey, who are far more bear
able than this Slave Power.
And here, in passing, I beg to protest emphatically against the confusion of
thought which the word Recognize covers. If pirates or mutineers become very
powerful, we cannot shut our eyes to this matter of fact ; and if we get into war
with them, we must call it war, and deal with them by the laws of war, which
we criminally refused to do in the Indian Mutiny. But before we adopt into
*(Note. ) — Even the quadi-oon (or descendant of an African mother in the fourth genera-
tionl, is undistinguishable Irom a pure European, and ordinarily much handsomer than Ihe inhabi
tants of at least Northern Europe. "The quadroons," says the Pulce of Saxe Weimar in his Travels
through North America, vol. ii, p. CI, " arc almost entirely white." Of the quinteroons, Mr.
Edwards says in his West Indies, book i, ch. 1. " There is no visible difference between them and
the whites, either in colour or features." Since all of these and their posterity are treated as cal tie,
equally with jet black negroes, we see that it is mere hypocrisy in philosophic men like Mr. Steplieiia
and Mr. Kpratt, to base the defence of their slavery on the doctrine of an inferior race. What of
Mr. Thomas Carljle ?

the family of European nations any particular power, we must enquire not only
whether it be a power,— as was the chief of the Pindarrees, or as the King ot
Lagos is,— but whether it have the moral quaUties which justify receiving it into
our national amity and "comity. To this day we have refused an ambassador
from the Pope on moral grounds ; yet now it is pretended that if a power do but
exist, it has at once a right of admission to the Queen's Court.
You have never heard from me any fierce indignation against Mahommedan
or Brazilian slavery. If American slavery now stood as Washington left it —
declining, deplored, and faintly apologized for, — with the light of freedom, free
speech, and the opinion of leading men undermining it, I should see nothing in
it to threaten the morality of Europe and the welfare of the world. If I were
an American, with such a slavery surrounding me as Washington left, I should
prefer to see it die under moral influences, rather than destroyed by bloodshed and
convulsion. But the exceptional characteristic of the Confederate Slave Power,
is, (as distinctly stated by its Vice President,) that it exists solely to glorify and
immortalize slavery. It is no longer apologetic, but fanatically self-righteous
and propagandist. It violently suppresses free speech on the part of its own
citizens against the sacred institution of slavery, and makes any amelioration
impossible. If yoii, a humane man, were a planter in Georgia or South Carolina,
and dared to propose to modify the wickedest of its wicked laws, your life would
not be safe for a day. Do you know, that our friend,  , was warned out of
Washington, and forced to escape for his life, for a twofold offence ? 1, — That
he had been present at an Abolition meeting in the North. 3, — In Washington
he waited tenderly on the sick bed of a slave.
But I am wrong to refer to private events, as to which it may be thought
there was perhaps some mistake or some hoax. There is no mistake, no ob
scurity in the following : Senator Hammond, of South Carolina, (the same, I
believe, who was afterwards Governor,) said in the U.S. Senate in 1838, "If
chance throw an abolitionist into our hands, he may expect a felon's death." So
Senator Preston, in a debate in the U.S. Senate, Jan. 1838, said: " Let au
abolitionist come within the borders of South Carolina : if we can catch him,
we will try him ; and notwithstanding all the interference of all the governments
on earth, including the Federal Government, we will hang him." Am I pre
sumptuous iu having a strong opinion on these foreign eveuts? But the South
has moved on since 1838. Their manifestos call the whole of Mr. Lincoln's
party abolitionists. The Richmond newspapers chime iu ; and the " Southern
Literary Messenger," without being thought to be ironical or traitorous, pro
pounds that every man is an abolitionist " who does not love (American) slavery
for its own sake as a divine institution." Does it behove a wise man to expect
any improvement to spring from such a fanatical, sanguinary, polluted, and pol
luting source ?
I frankly confess, though I cau manage to write with perfect calmness on
these things, I cannot speah calmly. My heart often becomes like a volcano. I
do not see how it can be otherwise with any honest man who knows the facts;
and I have not yet alluded to all of them. If you have not gone through them,
as I have, — peculiarly for twenty.five years past, and in some sense for forty
years; for in early youth I took the keenest interest in West Indian emancipa
tion, — I cannot in five minutes' talk communicate to you the rightfulness of
my agitation, while in imagination I see the beautiful quadroon writhing under
the whip, the mother agonized to lose her child, the pregnant, sick or suckling
woman cruelly driven to the field. And then, perhaps, if my words are choked
and hurried, and my eyes gleam with fierceness, you suppose my judgment to
be disordered and fanatical.
I have not yet probed the breeding system to the bottom. A respectable
American gentleman made to me the following statement: He interrogated a
fugitive slave, a man of noble stature and magnificent chest, why he had run
away. The man was slow to reply ; said that he had not been cruelly treated, but

he did not like his work. On being further pressed to explain what his work was,
 forgive me that I tell you; but where atrocity stalks abroad, we must not
cloak it through fastidiousness, — the fugitive at last unwillingly stated, that he
had been kept as a breeding tnan, in order to improve the stock of little niggers
for the market. He had felt this to be a great degradation, but knew that he
would be cruelly flogged if he disobeyed orders. At last the day came, when he
succeeded in escaping. Of course I cannot guarantee the story ; but I believe
it, not so much because similar statements are whispered from other quarters,
but because, by the nature of trade itself, under the principles legally laid down
it seems nearly inevitable. Nay, I feel certain, that that ingenuous and thorough
going logician, the Hon. L. W. Spratt, of South Carolina, would treat with high
disdain any objection to such a practice. " What ! " he would say, " when of course
no girl can be allowed to care who is the father of her children, who but a mad
man can object to her master so regulating the matter as to obtain the most
vigorous offspring ? This is not only beneficial to his purse, and conducive to
national energy, hut is also humane to the inferior race, in which we demand
high animal power and deprecate development of brain and mind." At any rate,
such a practice is perfectly legal, and cannot give offence to social opinion in the
South. The same may be said of white men selling their daughters. An English
gentleman who had lived 35 years in Illinois, and came away at last, because
the South became ever more fanatical and more over-bearing, so that his life
from week to week was unsafe ; told me that when he had expressed pity for a
poor girl, whom her father was taking down the Mississippi to sell for the pur
poses of New Orleans, the first reply that he received was, " that it was the old
man who ought to be pitied, for he would not do it unless he was hard up." Ou
his replying to this with some indignation, he was ad-^dsed " not to land on that
bank," (Missouri or Arkansas) " or they would string him up, quick enough." His
comment to me was, " No one can live on the borders of the South, without one
of two results. He must either put on the spirit of a martyr, risk his life fre
quently, and live with perpetual laceration of feeling; or he must stop his mouth,
wink hard at atrocities, and become callous in self-defence, sink in moral deUcacy
and humanity, and adopt fundamentally slaveholding sentiment." When, by
ferocity and bribes combined, the South had thus corrupted a part of the Northern
population, the English gentry give this as a reason for invective against the
North, and for equalizing it with the South ! I cannot without seeming uncivil
declare, how yeky unintelligent I must regard such reasoning to be.
Pla?iting States.
In the struggle for West Indian freedom, the enormity of slavery drove men
to speak plainly, as does the patronage of the Slave Power by refined and amiable
Englishmen drive me now. I well remember the shudder which passed through
society, when the " Edinburgh Review" gave currency to the statement, that in
Jamaica it was an ordinary piece of hospitality to a guest before retiring to bed, to
ask him whether he would like a girl to sleep with him ; in short as naturally as
one would ask. Did he wish for a jug of hot water ? Nothing in the laws or in the
social morals of the South forbids this ; perhaps in the breeding States thrifty
owners shrink from such liberality. Nevertheless, on the whole, the yellow breed
approaches in number the mass of West Indian slaves freed by England. What
an amount of moral agony is implied in the dry fact, that hundreds of thousands
of this more intelligent, sensitive ambitious race are treated as cattle by the law !
Aud what are we to think of men, whose hearts and consciences are so seared,
as to extol and glorify this system, and piously moralize over its humanity and
its divine sanction ? This junction of religion with cruelty was also a feature of
the Thugs. A Louisiana planter said to Mr. Olmstead* : " There is not a likely
looking black girl in this State that is not the paramour of a whiteman. There
is not an old plantation in which the grandchildren ofthe owner are not whipped
?Seaboard Slave States, p. 602 ; quoted by Professor Oairnes.

10
in the field by his overseer." " The practice," he added, " was not occasional or
general, but universal." I never heard of Thugs, cannibals, or buccaneers, in
Asia, Polynesia, or Africa, who have maintained institutions so hideous. Perhaps
Lord Wharncliffe, as your president, will patronize a book to be called The
Southern Peerage ; which, with necessary polygamous or agamous illustration,
will inform us how many of his brothers, sisters and cousins, each chivalrous
planter "whips in the field" or has sold off to distant markets. To me, re.adiiig
these things, the bloodshed of five years' war, with all its devastation, appears a
slight and merciful fine imposed by Divine Justice on those who have sustained
or connived at such enormities.
In regard to the Planting States, I will, for conciseness, confine myself to
three additional testimonies. The first is that of Mrs. Fanny Kemble, an
unexceptionable witness concerning the estate of her own husband, in South
Carolina. In vain did she, as mistress, try to soften the miseries of women,
who from being driven to the field when pregnant, suckling or sick, encountered
not only exhaustion and wearing pain, but internal maladies. This and other
cruelties were irremovable, not because her husband or his overseer were, in
Southern estimate, hard and stern, but because any relaxation of iron rule
would ijroduce such a mass of pretended ailments as to paralyze industry on
the estate. The mortality among the children was enormous. Such are the
happiest peasantry in the world ! My second witness is Judge Winter of Georgia,
a refugee driven out iu the beginning of the war for his attachment to the
Union. He has publicly stated, that he had taken note of more than 500
murders of coloured men, committed within his own range ; and in not one case
was the murderer brought into court. In general, white evidence is not forth
coming, and without this no murderer can be punished. But if ever it was known
that whites were cognizant of the crime, a Committee of Vigilance, as a thing
of course, forbade the summoning of a jury, and quashed the proceedings. The
Judge stated that the few laws in the public code which ostensibly protect the
slave are uniformly made void by the lynch-law, which supersedes legality. So
of course it must be, if " slaves have no rights which white men are bound to
respect." My third witness is General Benjamin Butler, whom no one will accuse
of mawkish philanthropy. In past years he was a "Hunker" or Proslavery
Democrat, and a personal friend of Jefferson Davis. But when at New Orleans he
had tomake judicial decisions, and he discovered by the sworn evidence of white
men the actual state of things, he was converted by the facts themselves and
became outright an Abolitionist. On returning to New York, and thence to
Massachusetts, he frankly defended himself before his old friends. He declared
that the condition of things in New Orleans was enough to drive men into
atheism : and told bis " Hunker" friends, that he had taken with him Southward
aU the " Hnnkerest" Democrats he could get ; and every one of them had
become an Abolitionist, as he had; and so would those whom beaddressed, if they
could go South, and see what slavery really meant. I submit, that such
testimonies — which, after all, are only illustrations of the La>j>, and might
confidently have been predicted after merely reading the Statute Book — arc not
to be set aside by any vague declamation, nor by a natural and rightful un
willingness to believe in the guilt of polished men.

Frankness of Fanaticism in the South.
Before closing this subject, since you fancy I ought not to be so sure that
I know what goes on across tbe Atlantic, I wish to quote as one specimen of
frankness, the speech of Mr. Gaulden, a delegate from Georgia to the Charles..
ton Convention in 1800. He says, — " I am a Southern-States-rigbts man. I am
an African slave-trader. I believe that slavery is right, morally, religiously,
socially and politically; and has dons more good for this country and for civiliza
tion, than all other interests put together  I would ask my friends of
the South to come up in a proper spirit. Ask our Northern friends to give us

11
our EIGHTS, and take off the ruthless restrictions lohich cut off tlie supply of
slaves from foreign lands. As a matter of eight and justice to the South, I
would ask the democracy of the North to grant us this thing ; and I believe they
have the patriotism and honesty to do it, because it is right in itself. I tell you,
fellow Democrats, that the African slave-trader is the true Union man  The
slave-trading of Virginia is more immoral, more unchristian in every point of
view, than the African slave trade  We are told upon high authority,
that there is a class of men, who strain at a gnat and swallow a camel. Vir
ginia, which authorizes the buying of Christian men, separating them from their
wives and children, from all the relations and associations amid which they have
lived for year,s, rolls up her eyes in holy horror, when I would go to Africa, buy
a savage, aud introduce him to the blessings of civilization and Christianity. . . .
It has been my fortune to go into that noble old State and buy a few darkies,
and I have had to pay from 1,000 to 3,000 dollars a head, when I could go to
Africa and buy better negroes for 50 dollars a-piece  Virginia knows that
the African slave-trade would break up her monopoly, and hence her objections
to it  I come from the first congressional district of the State oi Georgia.
I represent the African slave-trade interests of that section. I am proud of
the position I occupy in that respect. I believe that the African slave-trader is
a true missionary and Christian ; and I have pleadud with my delegation to put
this issuff squarely to the Northern democracy, and say to them, — 'Are you pre
pared to go back to first principles, and take off your unconstitutional restric
tions, and leave the question to be settled by each State ?' Now do this, fellow
citizens, and you will have peace in the country. But as long as your Federal
Legislature takes jurisdiction of this question, so long will there he war ; ......
and this glorious Union of ours shall le disrupted, and go out in blood and
night for ever."
This speech, taken in connection with more guarded official utterances,
makes it certain, that beside the reason for Secession allci^'ed in the Manifestos,
namely that it was expressly in order to save slavery from extinction within
the Union ; another reason impelled the leading seceders, — the desire to people
the Territories by re-opening the African Slave-Trade.

Want of Frankness in your Association.
Y'our Association, on the contrary, has ingeniously said the truth in words
so covered as to deceive your own President, who says that the South does not
wish to support slavery ! ! In the manife.sto, signed by Thomas Staley, Secretary,
(to which you have pledged your hitherto unspotted name, ) you give as a third
reason for secession, that tbe seceders v,'ere convinced that the Constitution
would soon cease to protect their eights. That is most correct, if you will
honourably explain what it is that they call their eights. Mr. Gaulden tells you :
It is not merely the right to whip their own daughters, subject them to rape or
iuce.-'.t, flog men and women at pleasure, even to death, with practical impunity in
carrying out the frightful doctrine that " Slaves have no rights, itc. itc," but
Also the right to fetch more slaves at pleasure from Africa; or as others have
expressed it, to make it as legal for the South to import niggers, as for the
Yankees to import jackasses or nutmegs. And who among them all cau possibly
answer Mr. Gaulden, when he asks : " Why forbid me to buy a savage in Africa
for 50 dollars, and force me to buy a Christian in Virginia for 1000 dollars?"
I do not now ask, whether the ratio of 30 to 1000 would not infallibly reopen
the slave trade ; but, whether, knowing that the South has re-imposed slavery
on Texas, and has rushed into border war to carry it into Kanzas, you cau put
your hand on yonr heart, and affirm the doctrine of your manifesto, that it is wise
to promote tbe independence of the South, in hope that it will abolish slavery.
According to this, if a fierce beast had killed one man and severely wounded
another, and in consequence some one had chained him up, you might innocently

13
let him loose, and tell us, " it is your sinceee opinion, that that is the way to
secure that he will do no harm in future." It is painful to use sti-oug words ;
but T think you would use them in that case. You would ask; Is this idiotci/ ?
or hypocrisy ? So here you drive me to ask, which of the two is it iu your
Association? Rather, I entreat you to show me some way of escape from
a most unpleasant alternative of judgment, when you tell us that thetPower
which, by every act and by every utterance of every official, every celebrated
preacher or writer, declares its fanatical resolution to do more energetically,
when free from control, what it has hitherto done in spite of control, — will
nevertheless lay its ferocity aside and become humane, if its pride be but inten
sified by new conquest. If your Association is sincere, but only ignorant, yet
ignorance, which deliberately shuts its eyes to specific facts, in pursuance of a
fantasy of its own, and tries to do Evil, calling it Good, is surely criminal.
When your Association must know that it is advancing things flatly opposed to
every thing that we maintain to be fact, I feel it scandalous in the extreme
(and I am sorry to say, a, stain on every member) that not a single testimony
is quoted in proof. Are you all so very ignorant as not to know anything of
the speeches of the President and Vice-President of the South, or of the mani
festos on the secession ? Why are they not quoted ? I well know, that those
who work ^ the machinery of your Association dare not quote them. Let
your Association, if it please, take up the defence of American chattel-slavery, as
Mr. Gaulden does, as Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, Toombs, Spratt,
Mason, Yancey, Williams, Maury, and every active Secessionist does. Let it,
with the courage, bravado, and brazen.facedness of these men, expose itself to
the indignation of Europe and of India; there is something heroic in such
self-complacent impudence. But I find no marks of out-spoken sincerity, such
as I desire to find ia you, when your Association tells me that you cordially hate
Slavery, yet do what you can in favour of the power which is fanatical and
furious to extend Slavery. Do you know that Mr. Spence was cashiered from
his post of Agent for the South,' and attacked with frenzied vituperation by a
leading Richmond newspaper, for having dared to apologize for slavery, instead
of glorifying it ? Did you never see the declaration of the Richmond Examiner,
m May last,— "For Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, we have deUberately substituted
Slavery, Subordination, and Government?" The line of argument adopted by
your Association can only damage the reputation, moral or intellectual, of every
member; yet no other line has a chance of gaining any honest Englishman to
the cause of the South.
I can only advert here to one other topic, on which I cannot reconcile the
suppressions practised m your manifesto with honest intentions I refer to the
alleged legality of Secession. If au English Prime-Minister were to consn^'re
with a Governor-General of India to separate India from the Queen's dominion •
were to use his official power to empty the English treasury, arsenals, and docks'
to withdraw the garrisons so that fortresses could be seized, aud place ships'
where they would either be burnt or made of least use; and, by aid of all the
Queen s civil and military servants in India, had succeeded in brinaintj about
a general revolt in that great country;-! believe you would think it lii-^hlv
dishonest m an American if, while reasoning in favour of the natural aud legal
rights of the insurgents, he should omit the oaedinal fact that every man who
was active m the secession was under oath of office to the Queen The American
insurgents were under oath of office to the Union, and by it alone gained theiJ
power of insurrection. This is suppressed in your manifesto. Mr. Conwav of
Virginia, (as one illustration of fact and law,) had to take this oath to the Union
under a Southern President, before he could be made Denutv c erl- in «'
county town -Warrenton in Virginia. England regarded as unp^donrble
the guilt of soldiers, who broke their allegiance to the E I Gnrnnm.
after the great Mogul, (the suzerain, under whom the Compan; held iti S
power,) was at war with us._ The guilt of Cabinet ministers: or GoveiS
of Provinces who break their oath of allegiance, is surely as much worse an I
more unpardonable than that of a private soldier, as theii- power is greater

18
Outram and Havelock did not dare to promise life to insurgent soldierg, who
desired to lay down their arms ; so sacred to Englishmen did an oath, taken to
their own supremacy, appear to be. Is your Association suddenly converted to
the belief, that oaths of office are things too trivial to deserve mention ? Let me
suppose that the nations of Europe, expressly in order to prevent in the future
such wars as have desolated the past, were solemnly to renounce the right of
private war, and were to establish over the heads of all the sovereigns a European
Union, which should, under a single flag and single Executive, hold all the armies,
all the fortresses, all the navies, and alone represent all Europe to the foreigner,
each State resigning its right of foreign embassies. If Queen Victoria, andevery
one of her servants from highest to lowest, and all her successors, aud their
servants, had to take an oath of office to this European Union, the Queen by
the very fact would cease to be an independent sovereign. Her sever-
eignty thenceforth would be only local ; for she herself would be under alle
giance to a supekiob ; nor could she possibly have a legal right to separate
at her own mere will, while no breach of faith had been committed against her.
She would be less of an independent sovereign, than the Nizam or the Rajah of
Travancore, or any other Indian Prince, who, I believe, do not take oaths of
office to the British power on ascending the throne : yet we well know how
any of these princes would be dealt with if he presumed to send embassies
to foreign powers, aud avowed that he had a right freely to break the treaties
which his predecessor had freely made. If a historian, pretending to narrate
such events as I imagine in Europe, were to omit that our Queen was under
oath of allegiance to a power higher than herself, you would condemn him as
suppressing a oaedinal fact. Your Association does much worse. It not only
suppresses the official perjury, and tissue of treachery, which stamps the
Southern officials as more unpardonable than mutineers, and their cause as
evidently illegal. It suppresses also other manifold proofs, that all the citizens
of all the States were subjects to the Union, one and indivisible ; such as, the
fact that every citizen of one State has a right of residence in every other under
protection of the Central Power; that the Central Executive has power of arrest
upon individuals in every State, and is bound to sustain republican govern
ment in each ; that, for the protection of all, the Central Legislature can com
mand soldiers from each ; and that Southern Presidents have impressed negroes
into the national ai'my without indemnifying their masters. Thus it hides the
fact, that the rebels are violently withdrawing from the Union three million
loyal coloured subjects of the Union ; to say nothing of the loyalists of East
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Mai7land, 'Texas, Western Virginia, aU of whom
the insurgents have claimed a right to subdue to their own wUl. It further sup
presses, that only the old and less important States took partat all in theoriginal
act of Union, wMle the newer States are creations of the Union, and stand oih
soU, which at least as strictly belongs to the Union as the West Indian islands to
our Queen, and that the same is true of the outlying Territories, in the cause of
which this struggle arose. Using such liberties of suppression,your Assocation, if
it could exist fifty years, might atthe end of that time justify Florence in revolting
against the king of Italy at its own mere caprice, and without grievances ; by
urging that Florence had voluntarily joined the crown of Piedmont, and there
fore had an eternal indefeasible right of arbitrary separation. You will only
need to do as you now do, — suppress all the facts which prove allegiance to a
higher power, — and you can justify anaechy iu Italy, anaeohy iu America,
ANAEOHY in England. You may thus resolve our island into the Heptarchy, and
bless us with such perpetual border- war between our counties as your advice
would complacently bestow on the Northern States.
In conclusion, I claim to remark on certain words of yours ; but distinctly
add that tbey neither surprize nor offend me. You express dislike of my
"preachings," and call us " embarrassers of the government." I take the latter
point first. The government at present represents all England. It contains
tories, whigs, and radicals, some openly bitter against the North, others known
to be favourable to its cause. Your party " embarrassed" the government for

14
more than twelve months before we moved; that is to say, it drove forward one
section of the government, and impeded another section. Had we not suc
coured the friends ofthe North, the cabinet, as a whole, would not have had fair
play. Not that I need any apology, had we had to oppose the entire ministry,
the entire aristocracy, and aU the richer classes, when your party was domg its
utmost to involve us in a war, which must certainly have been funereal to both
sides, and probably fatal to England,— a war against our dearest friends, in
favour of such a power as I have developed above,— a .Power which is our ne
cessary and implacable enemy. And pray take a short retrospect.^ I hardly
think you can believe that the ministry would have been so compliant to the
zeal of your party in offensive demonstrations of war, if any one had foreseen
that New Orleans would be captured before an English fleet could reach it,—
that in March, 1863, the Northern armies would subdue Western Ten
nessee, — that the Merrimac aud Monitor would presently demonstrate the
helplessnessness of the English fleet against a single iron-clad, — and that the
English Admiralty, after years of the most lavish experiment, would pronounce
the old 68-pounder their best gun, while the Northerners fire 440-pounders with
fatal effect. Those who yield to explosive pride or crooked expediency are the
mischievous meddlers with state affairs, not those who "preach morality."
And this leads me to the other topic. When a whole order of men rushes
into immorality, and shows itself ready for crime, it may be the duty of humble
persons like you and me, to smother sorrow in our hearts, and be silent; but if
I speak at all, (and I suppose that if I follow Mr. Spence by eighteen months,
I have been modest enough,) the nature ofthe case forbids tones of diffidence.
Morality is dogmatic, and must be " preached," not timidly whispered. Crimes
must be denounced without dissembling indignation. I do not carve out a new
morality of my own, but I follow up the precedents of the British Government,
and argue from its own deliberate conduct. Nothing is more baneful and detestable
than that a Great Power should have one code of morality for itself an d another
for the foreigner. I cannot forget that the Queen's ministry was so far from
recognizing the Great Mogul, or the Princes of Oude, as " belligerent " that it
treated the former as a felon, and sent him to a penal settlement, and winked
at his sons having been shot in cold blood, when they had, without compulsion,
entrusted themselves to the honour of an English officer. You cannot doubt
that a frenzy of rage would have swept through England, if the American
Government had declared the Great Mogul to be " belligerent," iu the summer
of 1857, and thereby enabled his agents to buy arms and ships at New York,
and send them out against English commerce ; yet our ministry did worse than
this. Boasting of "neutrality" between perjured traitors and a Government
allied to us, it insisted on reserving for the rebellious South a right of privateering,
against its own moral doctrines, and before the South had come into existence
asanavalpower, or had anynational rights butwhat England gratuitously gave it,
a step utterly unprecedented, and of immense avail to encourage an insui-rection,
which its own Vice-President had publicly avowed to be without grievances, and
to be the "height oi madness, folly , and wickedness." — So spoke Mr. Stephens at
the Convention in Georgia, in dissuading Secession.
England, which might have reduced bloodshed to a minimum, has inflamed
it to a maximum by the acts and speeches of our ministers, under the stimulus
of your party. When our blood had had time to cool from the Indian war,
Tantia Topee was hanged for having led Indian armies against British armies,
in what he must undoubtedly have felt to be a national contest; yet I do not
remember any outcries of horror in Parliament. Space fails me to detail the
many other glaring proofs which recent years have displayed, that the ruling
classes of England have one morality for themselves, and another for
free republics ; and that unless the humbler classes proclaim their indignant
protest in " preachings " which the whole world may hear, the world will believe
that we deserve the title Puritanical Pharisees, applied to us by the Southern
slaveholders. I am, heartily yours,
F. W. NEWMAN.

Missing Page

Missing Page

Missing Page

18
Outram and Havelock did not dare to promise life to insurgent soldierg, who
desired to lay down their arms ; so sacred to Englishmen did au oath, taken to
their ovm supremacy, appear to be. Is your Association suddenly converted to
the belief, that oaths of office are things too trivial to deserve mention ? Let me
suppose that the nations of Europe, expressly in order to prevent in the future
such wars as have desolated the past, were solemnly to renounce the right of
private war, and were to establish over the heads of all the sovereigns a European
Union, which should, under a single flag and single Executive, hold all the armies,
all the fortresses, aU the navies, and alone represent all Europe to the foreigner,
each State resigning its right of foreign embassies. If Queen Victoria, andevery
one of her servants from highest to lowest, and all her successors, and their
servants, had to take an oath of office to this European Union, the Queen by
the very fact would cease to be an independent sovereign. Her sover
eignty thenceforth would be only local; for she herself would be under alle
giance to a supeeiob; nor could she possibly have a legal right to separate
at her own mere will, while no breach of faith had been committed against her.
She would be less of an independent sovereign, than the Nizam or the Rajah of
Travancore, or any other Indian Prince, who, I believe, do not take oaths of
office to the British power on ascending the throne : yet we well know how
any of these princes would be dealt with if he presumed to send embassies
to foreign powers, and avowed that he had a right freely to break the treaties
which his predecessor had freely made. If a historian, pretending to narrate
such events as I imagine in Europe, were to omit that our Queen was under
oath of allegiance to a power liigher than herself, you would condemn h^m as
suppressing a oaedinal eaot. Your Association does much worse. It not only
suppresses the official perjury, and tissue of treachery, which stamps the
Southern officials as more unpardonable than mutineers, and their cause as
evidently illegal. It suppresses also other manifold proofs, that all the citizens
of aU the States were subjects to the Union, one and indivisible ; such as, the
fact that every citizen of one State has a right of residence in every other under
protection of the Central Power ; that the Central Executive has power of arrest
upon individuals in every State, and is bound to sustain republican govern
ment in each ; that, for the protection of all, the Central Legislature can com
mand soldiers from each ; and that Southern Presidents have impressed negroes
into the national army without indemnifying their masters. Thus it hides the
fact, that the rebels are violently withdrawing from the Union three million
loyal coloured subjects of the Union ; to say nothing of the loyalists of East
Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Texas, Western Virginia, all of whom
the insurgents have claimed a right to subdue to then- own will. It further sup
presses, that only the old and less important States took part at all iu the original
act of Union, while the newer States are creations of the Union, and stand on.
soU, which at least as strictly belongs to the Union as the West Indian islands to
our Queen, and that the same is true of the outlying Territories, in the cause of
which this struggle arose. Using such liberties of suppression, your Assocation, if
it could exist fifty years, might atthe end of that time justify Florence in revolting
against the king of Italy at its own mere caprice, and without grievances; by
urging that Florence had voluntarily joined the crown of Piedmont, and there
fore had an eternal indefeasible right of arbitrary separation. You wUl only
need to do as you now do, — suppress all the facts which prove allegiance io a
higher power, — and you can justify anaeohy in Italy, anaeohy in America,
ANABOHY in England. You may thus resolve our island into the Heptarchy, and
bless us with such perpetual border-war between our counties as your advice
would complacently bestow on the Northern States.
In conclusion, I claim to remark on certain words of yours ; but distinctly
add that they neither surprize nor offend me. You express dislike of my
"preachings," aud call us " embarrassers of the government." I take the latter
point first. The government at present represents all England. It contains
tories, whiga, and radicals, some openly bitter against the North, others known
to be favourable to its cause. ToMr party "embarrassed" the government for

UNION AND EMANCIPATION SOCIETY,
Offices, 51, PICCADILLY, MANCHESTER.
President,— THOMAS EAYLEY POTTEK, Esq.
Vice-PreHdents :

Thomas Bazley, Esq., M.P.
E. A. Leatbam, Esq., M. P.
P. A. Taylor, Esq., M.P.
James Kershaw, Esq., M.P.
W. Coningham, Esq., M.P.
Guildford J. H. Onslow,Esq.,M.P., "Winchester
Charles Sturge, Esq., Birmingham
G. L. A9h\Yorth, Esq., Rochdale
Lieut-General T. Perronet Thompson
Professor J- E. Cairnes, A.M., Dublin
trofessor Jno. Nichol, Glasgow
Professor Goldwin Smith, Oxford
Professor F. W. Newman, London.
Professor Beesly, London.
Hon. and Kev. Baptist \V. Noel, London
Eev. Thos. Guthrie, D.D., Edinburgh
HeVi Newman Hall, LL.B., London
Rev. James W. Massie, D.D., LL.D., London
John Stuart Mill, Esq., London
Thomas Hughes, Esq., barrister-at-law
E. G. Haviland, Esq., Cambridge
AV. E. Adams, Esq., Newcastle-on-Tyne
W. P. Paton, Esq., Glasgow.
George Wilson, Esq., Manchester
Dr. John Watts, Manchester
Mr. Edward Hooson, Manchester
Alderman Abel Heywood, Manchester
Aldei-man Robert KeU, Bradford
Alerman Henry Brown, Bradford
Alderman William Harvey, J.P,, SaJford
Alderman Thomas Livsey, Rochdale
Councillor Murray, Manchester
Councillor T. Wai'burton, Manchester
Councillor Geo. Booth, Manchester
Councillor Clegg, Manchester
Councillor Williams, Salford
Councillor Butterworth, Manchester
Councillor Ogden, Manchester
Councillor Ryder, Manchester
Max Kyllman, Esq., Manchester
S. P. Robinson, Esq., Manchester
H. M, Steinthal, Esq., Manchester.
Erancis Taylor, Esq., Manchester
Thomas Thomasson, Esq., Bolton
Joseph Leese, Esq., Bowdou
John Epps, Esq., M.D., London.
J. A. Langford, Esq., Birmingham
Rev. Hy. W. Crosskey, Glasgow
J. J. Colman, Esq., Norwich
James M. Clelland, Esq., Glasgow
William Brown, Esq., Glasgow
Edward Alexander, jun., Esq.. Glasgow
Councillor John Burt, Glasgow
Professor Henry Faweett, Cambridge
Heni-y Lightbown, Esq., IPendleton
Abraham Howarth, Esq., Manchester
James M. Paton, Esq., Montrose
Thos. R. Arnott, Esq., Liverpool
E. K. Muspratt, Esq., Liverpool
J. B. Whitehead, Esq., Eawtenstall
Isaac B. Cooke, Esq., Liverpool
Thomas Crosfield^ Esq,, Liverpool
E. Gladstone, Esq., Livei-pool
John Patterson, Esq., Liverpool
Councillor J. R. Jeffery, Liverpool
C. E. Rawlins, jun., Esq., Liverpool
Charles Robertson, Esq., Liverpool
Robert Trimble, Esq., Liverpool
Charles Wilson, Esq., Liverpool

William Shaen, Esq., London
Duncan M'Lai'en, Esq., Edinburgh
Handel Cossham, Esq., Bristol
S. 0. Kell, Esq., Bradford
Eichard C. Rawlings, Esq., Ruabon
J. S. Barratt, Esq., Southport
Thomas C. Ryley, Esq., Wigan
R. S. Ashton, Esq., Darwen
Eccles Shorrock, Esq., Darwen
John Crosfleld, Esq., Warrington
Jacob Bright, Esq., Rochdale
John Petrie, Esq., Rochdale
Oliver Ormerod, Esq., Rochdale
J. C. Dyer, Esq., Burnage
George Crosfield, Esq., Lymm
F. Pennington, Esq., Alderley
J. B. Foster, Esq., Manchester
James Galloway, Esq., Manchester
Charles Cheetham, Esq., Heywood
Joseph Cowan, jun., Esq., Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Rev. Samuel Davidson, LL.D., London
Eev. Francis Bishop, Chesterfield
Rev, J. Parker, D.D., Manchester
Rev. J. Eobberds, B.A., Liverpool
Rev. Marmaduke Miller, Darlington
Rev. T.G.Lee, Salford
S. Pope, Esq., Bariister-at-law
E. Jones, Esq., barrister-at-law
Dr. Louis Borchardt, Manchester
Charles H. Braoebi'idge, Esq., Atherstone Hall
Eev. Goodwyn Barmby, Wakefield
William Jeffery Etches, Esq., Derby
Eev. C. M. Birrell, Liverpool
Professor J. E, Thorold Rogers, Oxford Row
Mr. Sergeant Parry, London
William Biggs, Esq., Leicester
Rev. Leslie Stephen, Fellow of Trinity Hall,
Cambridge
Rev. Robert B. Drummond, B.A., Edinburgh
Andrew Leighton, Esq., Ijiverpool
Edward Dicey, Esq., London
Eev. N. M. Michael, D.D., Dunfermline
James Ross, Esq., Carlisle
Robert Ferguson, Esq., Carlisle
Eichard Johnson, Esq., Manchester
Joseph Spencer, Esq., Manchester
Eev. Geo. D. Mac.Gregor, Farnworth
Thos. Spence, Esq., barrister-at-law
Eev. G. T. Fox, Durham
Ai-thur Trevelyan, Esq., J.P. Teinholme
James M'CuUoch, Esq., M.D., Dumfries
Peter Bedford Scott, Esq., Edinburgh
W. E. Hodgkinson, Esq., Manchester
Sir John Plesketh LethbridgCj Bart., Taunton
J.-Mackenzie, Esq., M.D., J.P., Inverness
Thomas Nelson, Esq., Edinburgh
John Ashworth, Esq., J.P., Turton, near Bolton
Thomas Emmett, Esq., Oldham
Rev. John Guttridge, President M. F. Church
¦\ViJliam G. Leng, Esq., Dundee
Eobert Service, Esq., Culcreuch, Glasgow
E. W. Thomas, Esq,, Mayor of Oswestry
James Aytoun, Esq., London
Hon. George Brown, Toronto
Professor Eogers, Glasgow
Dr. Alexander, Edinburgh
E. Peek, Esq., J.P., Hazlewood
Col. Henry Salwey, Runnymede Park, Egham

Treasurer, — Samuel Watts, jun,, Esq,, Manchester.
Banhers, — Manchester and Salford Bank.
Members enrolled^ and publications supplied, daily, at the Offices
of the Society.
JOHN C. EDWAEDS, )„ o_
 EDWARD OWEN GEEENING, P°"- ^^'^^-

'•• •''/'¦.J,"
^. l!.T!i!

.'.

. t J
¦ H :'¦''.
n -.1,).'

'¦.^

^^-':''?''ii