broadcast the seeds of dissension in our midst. Abolitionism in this country first originated in, and has been sustained by, foreign interference, and religious fanaticism. It is the last hope of European monarchies to destroy our republic. The fact is notorious, and is susceptible of proof, that the abolition excitement was first set on foot in this country by British influence. There has been a constant effort in England, to array the North against the South. "We have the best of reasons for believing, that her original object was the severance of this Union." One English journal says, "The people of England will never rest, till slavery is terminated in the United States;" and another says, "Slavery can only be reached through the Federal Constitution." That is, slavery can only be reached, by destroying our present form of government, and dissolving our Union. The English are well aware, that they cannot reach slavery in this country, except by dissolving our Union and involving us in civil war; in which war, of course, they expect to take an active part. In the name of God, are we prepared for all this? Have we ever counted the cost? I hope I shall be pardoned for using strong language, when I allude to this subject. It is enough. Who that loves his country, can keep cool, while reflecting on these things? Is it not almost enough to make a Christian swear? No my friends we will not swear about it; but I entreat you to keep your eyes upon that old rascal, John Bull. He needs watching, and his Northern allies in the United States, are as vile scamps as he is.

I might quote from English journals, and English statesmen, to show what her feelings, views, and intentions have been in relation to this country; but I forbear at present. We know that her unwarrantable interference with the civil institutions of our country, did not originate in any sympathy that she felt for the oppressed African in our midst. The idea is ridiculous. The whole history of the English government proves the contrary. Talk about the English government sympathizing with the oppressed of other nations. It is nonsense—a ridiculous inconsistency. No part of the English government can be pointed out, in which there is not worse slavery in some form or other, than there is in the United States:—yes, worse, far worse, than negro-slavery in the Southern States. What says Southy, the English poet, of the great mass of the English poor? He says that "they are deprived, in childhood, of all instruction, and enjoyment. They grow up without decency—without comfort—without hope—without morals, and without shame." The North British Review expressed similar sentiments. If I am correctly informed, negro slavery, itself, is not extinct in the British dominions. I am aware that they call it an apprenticeship, but it is slavery notwithstanding. Yes, it is involuntary slavery and nothing else. But yet she would have us believe that she feels an intense interest in African slavery, in the United States. How does it happen that she is so interested about slavery among us, but is deaf to the cry of her own enslaved and starving millions, in British India, and other parts of her dominions? It is said that in 1838, five hundred thousand perished of famine, in a single district, in British India; and that too within the reach of English granaries locked up, and guarded by a military force! This is a fair sample of English benevolence; alias, English cupidity. And what says Allison the English historian of wretched Ireland? Her history and her sufferings are familiar to every one. He avows the opinion, in his History of Europe, "that it would be a real blessing to its inhabitants, in lieu of the destitution of freedom, to obtain the protection of slavery." And Murray the English traveler says of the slaves of the United States, "if they could forget that they are slaves, their condition is decidedly better than the great mass of European laborers." And what said Dr. Durbin a few years ago of the British nation? He told us that "the mass of the people were slaves, and the few were masters without the responsibility of masters." He proceeds to tell us, that the condition of the slaves of the United States, is in every respect better than millions in Ireland and England. This is the testimony of a distinguished minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, (North,) whom, nobody will suspect of any undue partiality for Southern slave-holders. When we look at the "degradation, the slavery, the exile, the hunger, the toil, the filth and the nakedness," of the English poor, we are astonished at the brazen impudence of that cruel, godless, and hypocritical nation! Nor are we less surprised, when we think of the ungodly crew of fools and fanatics in the United States, who are leagued with that monster England to overthrow their own government! I have said, and I boldly reiterate the assertion, that slavery exists in every part of the British dominions, in a form far worse than negro slavery in the United States! And I am able to corroborate the truth of the remark, by a volume of the most reliable testimony; and much of that might be drawn from the admissions of English Journals, and English statesmen. I will quote a few more English authorities, and dismiss the subject. The British Asiatic Journal says, "the whole of Hindostan, with the adjacent possessions, is one magnificent plantation, peopled by more than one hundred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of gentlemen in England, whose power is far more unlimited than any Southern planter over his slaves in the United States." And the same authority tells us, "that in Malabar, the islands of Ceylon, St. Helena and other places, the English government is a notorious slave-factor—a regular jobber in the purchase and sale of slaves; and that this system is carried on and perpetuated by the purses and bayonet of the English government." Dr. Bowering affirms of the British subjects in India, "that the entire population of that empire are subjected to the most degrading servitude—a deeper degradation than any produced by American slavery." The same writer declares "that a regular system of kidnapping is carried on by the English." The Duke of Wellington remarked in the House of Lords, that "slavery does exist in India—domestic slavery in particular." Sir Robert Peel made the charge and offered the evidence, "that British merchants are even now deeply and extensively engaged in the slave trade;" and that the English government was, at the time he spoke, "engaged in a new system of English negro slavery, by the forcible capture of negroes in Africa, &c." We are told by the London Times of Feb. 20, 1853, "that British slavery is ten thousand times worse than negro slavery of the United States," and that the condition of those, whom he denominated British slaves, "is a scandal and a reproach, not only to the government, but to the owners of every description of property in England." This is strong language, and the reader will please recollect, that it is the testimony of a leading English Journal, so late as February, 1853.

Here is an array of English testimony that cannot fail to convince every one that slavery exists to the present moment in the English dominions, in a form far more aggravated than African slavery in the United States. How is it then, that she has been, and is to the present time, making ceaseless and untiring efforts to exaggerate the sufferings and the disabilities of the African race in our midst, while there is so much suffering and oppression among her own subjects? Is it not an, extraordinary circumstance, that a nation who has expended so much blood and treasure in invading the rights of others—a nation that to the present hour tolerates and legalizes slavery in its worst possible forms—or rather, in every possible form; should affect so much solicitude about its extinction in a foreign government? In view of all these facts, is it not a humiliating circumstance; or rather, is it not an outrageous insult to the American people, that Madam Stowe, after having basely