nearly three millions of our fellow-creatures, of both sexes and all In placing the foregoing statement before you, the committee venture respectfully to press on your attention the painful fact, that a large body of men in the United States, who profess and call themselves Christians, and who would feel no difficulty in subscribing your confession of faith, are the oppressors of their brethren, or the apologists of the system of slavery which exists in their country at the present time; and to implore you to pause before you invite them to your association; nay, rather to urge you, in the spirit of Christian fidelity and courtesy, to refuse to receive into your fellowship all men, be their pretensions what they may, who either directly participate, or acquiesce in upholding or advocating the enslavement of their fellow-men. It is due, however, to the purer branches of the ecclesiastical organizations before noticed, to say, that many of them are bearing a noble testimony against slavery; that many of them have, and all are rapidly separating themselves, from official connexion with those who violate, by their conduct, the fundamental principles of that religion they profess to exalt. Composed, as the anti-slavery body is, of every class of Christian professors in this country, they cannot but feel deeply interested in the course you propose to adopt in this particular case; and will be highly gratified to learn that your decision is to exclude the parties referred to from the proposed Alliance. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, (On behalf of the Committee), 27th February, 1846. JOHN SCOBLE, Secretary. [The following Documents are respectfully submitted for consideration.] The law which regulates the condition of these slaves does not sanction their marriage. If they enter into arrangements to live Anti-Slavery Office, 27, New Broad Street, together, as man and wife, it knows nothing of the relation, and consequently does not protect it. It may be sundered in a moment. The result is, that not only is the divine ordinance of matrimony set aside, but a disgraceful system of concubinage is established in its place, and a degree of licentious indulgence generated, which is frightful to contemplate. Neither does the law recognise the parental relation. In this respect the children of slaves are placed on the same level with the offspring of brutes. Both are property. The father cannot protect his son from injustice; the mother her daughter from dishonour. The tears, the lamentations, the entreaties of parents, are no more regarded than the lowing of cattle; and, should they become troublesome, they are punished with severity. Copy of Resolutions passed by the General Anti-Slavery Convention, held in London during the month of June, 1840. JOSEPH STURGE, ESQ. in the Chair. Moved by the Rev. John Angell James, of Birmingham, seconded by the Rev. J. H. Johnson, Vicar of Tilshead, Wiltshire; and supported Belfast; Revds. Thomas Binney, John Burnet, and Dr. Cox, of London; by R. K. Greville, Esq., LL.D., Edinburgh, James Stanfield, Esq., Rev. Thomas Swan, Birmingham; Rev. William Brock, Norwich ; Josiah Forster, Esq., London; and by the Hon. J. G. Birney, the Rev. Henry Colver, H. Grew, George Bradburn, & H. B. Stanton, Esqrs. of the United States; and carried unanimously, the Convention stand The committee dwell not on the continual injustice inflicted on the slave, by depriving him of the legitimate fruits of his labor, or the liberty of choice in respect of his employment and employer;ing:nor of the cruel modes which are resorted to for the purpose of coercing labor, and of enforcing obedience. These are too well known to need description. It is quite natural that a system, which violates all the essential rights of humanity, and outrages the laws of God, should lead to the practice of every enormity which wicked men could invent, or human nature endure. The laws of the slave-states, moreover, rigidly exclude from the poor slaves all instruction, whether secular or moral. In some of the states the heaviest penalties may be inflicted for teaching them the use of letters; and in one state death itself is the punishment for a second offence. The consequence is, that, in a land which boasts of its enlightened Christianity and republican institutions, there is a heathen and enslaved population, from whose minds is systematically excluded not only the sacred verities of religion, but the commonest rudiments of knowledge. If, in some instances, light penetrates their minds, it only serves to make the surrounding darkness the more palpable and hideous. And this deplorable state of things not only exists with the connivance, but is sustained, unhappily, by the direct participation of several sections of the professedly Christian church. Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Wesleyans, Baptists, Independents, are all implicated in the support of this criminal institution. Preachers bishops, and presbyters, and pastors, and ministers; elders and deacons, and members are found among slave-holders and slavesellers; and it is to be feared are, in many instances, not less exacting and cruel than are the men who do not profess to be actuated by their religious principles, but who, nevertheless, urge in their defence the pernicious example set them. Now, gentlemen, it appears to the committee to be a sacred duty, on the part of all who are sincere in their profession of obedience to the righteous precepts of the gospel, and are influenced by its benign spirit, to plead the cause of the oppressed, and to judge between them and their oppressors. "That it is the deliberate and deep-rooted conviction of this Convention, which it thus publicly and solemnly expresses to the world, that slavery, in whatever form, or in whatever country it exists, is contrary to the eternal and immutable principles of justice, and the spirit and precepts of Christianity; and is, therefore, a sin against God, which acquires additional enormity when committed by nations professedly Christian, and in an age when the subject has been so generally discussed, and its criminality so thoroughly exposed. "That this Convention cannot but deeply deplore the fact, that the conto the countenance afforded by many Christian churches, especially in the tinuance and prevalence of slavery are to be attributed, in a great degree, Western world, which have not only withheld that emphatic and public testimony against the crime which it deserves, but have retained in their communion, without censure, those by whom it is notoriously perpetrated. "That this Convention, while it disclaims the intention or desire of dictating to Christian communities the terms of their fellowship, respect. fully yet urgently recommends them to consider, whether it is not their incumbent duty to separate from their communion, all those persons who, after they have been faithfully warned, continue in the sin of enslaving their fellow-creatures, or holding them in slavery; a sin, by the commission of which, with whatever mitigating circumstances it may be attended in their own particular instance, they give the support of their example to the whole system of compulsory servitude, and the unutterable horrors of the slave-trade. "That it be recommended to the Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, in the name of this Convention, to furnish copies of the above resolutions to the ecclesiastical authorities of the various Christian churches thoughout the world." Copy of Resolutions passed by the GeneralAnti-slavery Conven tion, held in London during the month of June, 1843. SAMUEL GURNEY, Esq. in the Chair. Moved by the Rev. John Angell James, of Birmingham; seconded by by the Rev. John Ritchie, D.D., of Glasgow; supported by the Rev. Dr. "That this Convention hereby declares to the world its deliberate and solemn conviction that slavery, in whatever form or country it exists, is intrinsically opposed to all natural justice and genuine Christianity; that in proportion as these exert their legitimate vigour and influence in society, it must be destroyed ;and that while the Convention deeply deplores the sanction or support still given to it, either overtly or tacitly, by so many churches and religious bodies, especially in the United States, it rejoices in the assurance that so many others are bearing their public and decided testimony against it, refusing to retain in their communion those who, after due admonition, persist in the justification and practice of it. "That, encouraged by the progress of earnest sentiment and action on this subject, in the churches and religious bodies of America and other countries, this Convention repeats the testimony of the Convention of 1840; that, while it disclaims the intention or desire of dictating to Christian communities the terms of their fellowship, respectfully submits, that it is their incumbent duty to separate from their communion all those persons who, after they have been faithfully warned, in the spirit of the gospel, continue in the sin of enslaving their fellow-creatures, or holding them in slavery-—a sin, by the commission of which, with whatever mitigating circumstances it may be attended in their own particular instance, they give the support of their example to the whole system of compulsory servitude, and the unutterable horrors of the slave-trade. "That this Convention, while it passes no judgment on the particular forms of action which different friends of the slave, in different circum stances, may adopt, hereby expresses its cordial sympathy and high admiration of all those who, in a Christian spirit and by Christian methods, are sincerely and earnestly labouring to purify their respective religious connexions from all fellowship with, and support of this heinous sin." MARRIAGE AMONG SLAVES. Slavery, in principle and in fact, annihilates the marriage relation. It knows no man as husband, no woman as wife. It enjoins no duties, it confers no rights upon the parties that sustain this relation. No man who is a slave can assert or maintain his right to cherish and protect the woman whom he calls his wife: no slave woman can assert and maintain her right to obey the man whom she calls her husband. Lawful wedlock, with its rights and duties, does not exist among our entire slave population. The testimony of an esteemed personal friend, Rev. Wm. T. A llen, formerly of Huntsville, Alabama, will give a clear view of what is law and fact on this subject. He says, “legal marriage is unknown among the slaves. They sometimes have a marriage form; generally, none at all. The pastor of the Presbyterian Church in Huntsville, Alabama had two families of slaves when I left there. One couple were married by a negro preacher, the man was robbed of his wife months afterwards by her 'owner.' The other couple just took up together, without any form of marriage. They are both members of churches-the man a Baptist deacon, sober and correct in his deportment. They have a large family of children-all children of concubinage-living in a minister's family." While Professor Andrews, resided some years since in Carolina, he says, an old negro came to me one day, weeping so immoderately that for some time I could not clearly ascertain the cause of his disPeter had just then heard that his wife's master was about to sell her to a speculator." The Professor sought to console him, when he replied “This is my third wife; both of my other wives tress. were sold to speculators, and were carried to the South, and I never heard from them since." Truly have the Savannah (Ga.) River Baptist Association said, while speaking on this subject, "The slaves are not free moral agents, and a dissolution of the marriage covenant by death, is not more entirely without their consent and beyond their controul, than by separation." Slavery, in principle, denies to the slave the right to provide for his wife, defend her person from the grossest conceivable insult, or prevent a final separation at the pleasure of the lawful master. If it be consistent with righteousness to prohibit marriage, then is slavery in this respect right; but if it be essentially wrong to make such prohibition, then is slavery essentially wrong-sin in its very nature. In the estimation of the Old School, General Assembly, at its recent meeting at Cincinnati, that land must be a polluted one, where the widower is permitted to marry the sister of his deceased wife: but that church retains its vestal purity which fellowships American slavery, which render lawful marriage impossible, encourages and sanctions, if it does not necessitate, a system of indiscriminate fornication and adultry.-REV. W. S. STREETER. SLAVERY IN THE FRENCH COLONIES. TO THE PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE FRENCH ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. Dear Friends,-We are reminded by the opening of the French Legislative Chambers that (our friends and fellow-labourers in the cause of human freedom) the members of the Committee of the French Anti-Slavery Society, are now, for the most part, in Paris; and that, probably, they have resumed their meetings, for the purpose of promoting the abolition of slavery in the French Colonies. It is satisfactory to know that since we last had the pleasure of addressing you, one great cause of irritation to France, the right of search, has been removed; and that, consequently, the general question of emancipation can now be discussed with that calmness, and, at the same time, with that earnestness, which its great importance demands. You, gentlemen, can bear us witness that, as the representatives of the great body of abolitionists in this country, we were never favourable to the armed suppression of the slavetrade; and, therefore, opposed to the right of search, because we believed it to be impossible to eradicate the evil by that means. The experience of the last thirty years proves, that if you would effectually destroy the slave-trade you must first abolish slavery. We, therefore, regret that any new measures should have been adopted by Great Britain and France, similar in their character, for the extinction of the slave-trade, because we are satisfied they will be found, in execution, not only useless but embarrassing. You, gentlemen, will rejoice with us, that in no part of the dominions of Great Britain is it lawful to make or to hold men as slaves. In 1838, the Act for the Abolition of Slavery in the British West Indies, Guiana, Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope, passed in 1833, received its accomplishment in the extinction of the apprenticeship system. In 1842, slavery legally terminated at the British settlements of Malacca, Singapore, Penang and Province Wellesley. In 1843, slavery and the slave-trade were utterly abolished in Scinde; and, in the same year, was enacted the celebrated law which gave liberty to millions in British India. In 1843, laws were passed which abolished the 'Pawn system' at the British settlement on the Gold Coast, Western Africa; and forbade the introduction of slavery into the new settlement of Port Natal on the eastern coast of the same continent. In 1844, slavery was entirely abolished at Hong Kong; and the remnants of the evil, which then existed in Ceylon were for ever destroved at the close of the year. Nor was British legislation merely confined to the overthrow of slavery. Feeling the importance of attacking the slave-trade at all its vulnerable points, laws were passed in 1842, and 1843, for the purpose of extending the provisions of the Consolidated SlaveTrade Abolition Act, passed in 1824, to British India, and to British subjects residing in foreign countries. Under these various acts it is now unlawful for British subjects, or foreigners residing within any of the territories of Great Britain, to hold or possess slaves. It is, also, unlawful for British subjects to deal or traffic in slaves in any part of the world, or to aid and abet such traffic. It is equally unlawful for British subjects to invest money in the purchase of slaves, for any purpose whatever, in slave-holding coun tries. At this moment, then, it may be said, without boasting, that every portion of the British empire is sacred to freedom; and our earnest desire is, that the same may be soon predicated of every civilized and Christian nation in the world. You will understand us, gentlemen, when we say that our eyes are turned with more than ordinary interest to France. Knowing the position which your great country occupies among the nations of the earth, and its potent influence for good or for evil, we are deeply anxious that, equally with our own, it should be freed from the guilt and disgrace of holding a single human being in slavery. In this, gentlemen, you will more than sympathize with us, for the question is your own; you will complete the work you have so honourably begun. Nor will you, we trust, restrict your labours to your four great slave colonies of Martinique, Guadeloupe, Bourbon, and Cayenne, but will also direct them to Africa and to Asia, where you have colonies and settlements; and where-alas! slavery is permitted to crush and oppress many thousands of the human race. It would, perhaps, be premature for us to venture an opinion on the law of last session; yet we cannot refrain from submitting to you our opinion, that it was thoroughly objectionable in principle, and that it will be found impossible to work it fairly in the interests of the slave population. The only good we think that can arise from it, will be to convince the most sceptical, that the true remedy for slavery is its entire abolition. Constituted as colonial society is, with its recollections and its prejudices, you will have to encounter a fierce and prolonged resistance, unless you determine at once to master it by a law which shall leave it no power to impede the determination of the mother country. And we believe that such a law would be as politic as just; for, if you determine the slave shall be free, how much better to free him at once than to fill him with delusive promises, which he feels he shall never realize. "Hope deferred maketh the heart sick;" it sometimes becomes despair, and terminates in revenge. On the other hand, to abridge the power of the master, to take from him so much of his power as to make him angry without depriving him of enough to render him harmless, as to open a rankling sore in his heart, and to indispose him, under any circumstances, to deal mercifully with his slave. The consequence must be increased hastily between the oppressor and the oppressed. Who, for instance, can expect that the valuation of slaves under the new law, will be as low, as under the old system? Who can expect that punishments will be less numerous or severe? Who can expect that the means of the slaves' subsistence will be increased? Who can expect that marriage will be more respected, or parental rights more secure? Who can anticipate that there will be a larger amount of education imparted to the slaves than heretofore? Your experience, gentlemen, will be a repetition of ours. You will find you have to deal with men void of reason, whose sole object is to reign supreme. In the meantime how much injury will have been done in the colonies! Not being able to contend with you, the colonists will let their indignation fall on the negroes, who, in their hour, and when their turn comes, as assuredly it must, will refuse to labour for those who have so long denied them their just rights, or treated them with cruelty and oppression. Excuse, gentlemen, these remarks. In making them we avail ourselves of the privilege of friends and fellow-labourers in the cause of human freedom; and most happy shall we be to learn that you intend to prosecute your great work with increased zeal and determination, until you shall have fully achieved its triumph. I have the honour to be, Gentlemen, Malacca, Singapore, and Wellesley, in Scinde in British India, at the Gold Coast, and at Port Natal, on the Eastern and Western Coasts of Africa, at Hong Kong, and lastly at Ceylon. The law which you mention by which it is rendered illegal for British subjects, or foreigners residing within the territories of Great Britain, to employ any money in the purchase of slaves, under any pretext, will prove to those who still may have any doubt, that Great Britain will not relax in her endeavours to destroy the monstrous system of slavery. It affords us satisfaction to know that any violation of the existing law will meet its merited punishment. It is to your persevering efforts that results of so important a nature must be attributed. We are far from being able in France to act with so much decision in the carrying out of our righteous cause; but we have confidence in the liberality of the sentiments of the people, and the power of our institutions, and we do not doubt that our constant and unremitting efforts will hasten the period when our colonies and other possessions beyond the sea will be no more dishonoured by the existence of slavery. We are perfectly well aware of the insufficiency of the legislative enactments passsed in the Sessions of 1845, which were intended to lead to the progressive liberty of the slaves in our colonies, and the means which are adopted to elude them. We have always foreseen it. We collect from time to time the facts as they arise, in order to prove to the legislature that the desired results have not followed, and that so far from being ameliorated, the condition of the slave is growing worse day by day. We have to contend against great obstacles, but discouragement will not always attend us; and we shall pursue our way even to triumph in the holy cause we have espoused with you. We pray you, gentlemen and kind friends, believe the expressions of our cordial affection, and our unalterable union of sentiment. V. TRACEY, President. (Signed) DUTRONE, Secretary. Paris, 3rd March, 1846. sense. BIBLE ARGUMENT AGAINST SLAVERY.-No. 3. IMPORT OF "BUY," AND "BOUGHT WITH MONEY." As the Israelites were commanded to "buy" their servants, and as Abraham had servants "bought with money," it is argued that servants were articles of property! The sole ground for this belief is the terms themselves. How much might be saved, if in discussion, the thing to be proved were always assumed! To beg the question in debate, is vast economy of midnight oil, and a wholesale forestaller of wrinkles and grey hairs. Instead of protracted investigation into scripture usage, painfully collating passages, to settle the meaning of terms, let every man interpret the oldest book in the world by the usages of his own time and place, and the work is done. And then instead of one revelation, they might be multiplied as the drops of the morning, and every man have an infallible clue to the mind of the spirit in the dialect of his own neighbourhood! What a Babel-jargon, to take it for granted that the sense in which words are now used, is the inspired David says, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried." What, stop the earth in its revolution? Two hundred years ago, prevent was used in its strict Latin sense, to come before, or anticipate. It is always used in this sense in the Old and New Testaments. David's expression, in the English of the nineteenth century, would be, "Before the dawning of the morning I cried." In almost every chapter of the Bible, words are used in a sense now nearly, or quite obsolete; and sometimes in a sense totally opposite to their present meaning. A few examples follow: "I purposed to come to you, but was let (hindered) hitherto." "Whosoever shall offend (cause to sin) one of these little ones.' "Go out into the highways and compel (urge) them to come in." "The Lord Jesus Christ who shall judge the quick (living) and the dead." "They that seek me early (earnestly) shall find me." "So when tribulation or persecution ariseth by-and-by (immediately) they are offended." Nothing is more mutable than this language. Words, like bodies, are always throwing off some particles, and absorbing others. So long as they are mere representatives, elected by the whims of universal suffrage, their meaning will be a perfect volatile, and to cork it up for the next century is an employment sufficiently silly (to speak within bounds) for a modern Bible-dictionary maker. There never was a shallower conceit than that of establishing the sense attached to a word centuries ago, by showing what it means now. The inference that the word buy, used to describe the procuring of servants, means procuring them as chattels, seems based upon the fallacy, that whatever costs money is money; that whatever or whoever you pay money for, is an article of property, and the fact of your paying for it, proves it property. 1. The children of Israel were required to purchase their first-born from under the obligations of the priesthood, Num. xviii. 15, 16; iii. 45–51; Ex. xiii. 13; xxxiv. 20. (This custom still exists among the Jews, and the word buy is still used to describe the transaction. Does this prove that their first-born were, or are, held as property? They were bought as really as were servants. 2. The Israelites were required to pay money for their own souls. This is called sometimes a ransom, sometimes an atonement. Were their souls therefore marketable commodities? 3. When the Israelites set apart themselves or their children to the Lord by vow, for the performance of some service, an express statute provided that a price should be set upon the "persons," and it prescribed the manner and terms of the "estimation" or valuation, by the payment of which, the persons might be bought off from the service vowed. The price for males from one month old to five years was five shekels, for females, three; from five years old to twenty, for males, twenty shekels, for females, ten; from twenty years old to sixty, for males, fifty shekels, for females, thirty; above sixty years old, for males, fifteen shekels, for females, ten. Lev. xxvii. 2-8. What egregious folly to contend that all these descriptions of persons were goods and chattels, because they were bought and their prices regulated by law! 4. Bible saints bought their wives. Boaz bought Ruth. "Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased (bought) to be my wife." Ruth iv. 10. Hosea bought his wife. "So I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and for an homer of barley, and an half homer of barley." Hosea iii. 22. Jacob bought his wives Rachael and Leah, and not having money, paid for them in labour-seven years a-piece. Gen. xxix. 15-23. Moses probably bought his wife in the same way, and paid for her by his labour, as the servant of her father. Ex. ii. 21. Shechem, when negotiating with Jacob and his sons for Dinah, says, "Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me." Gen. xxxiv. 11, 12. David purchased Michael, and Othniel, Achsah, by performing perilous services for the fathers of the damsels. 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27; Judges i. 12, 13. That the purchase of wives, either with money or by service, was the general practice, is plain from such passages as Ex. xxii. 17, and 1 Sam. xviii. 25. Among the modern Jews this usage exists, though now a mere form, there being no real purchase. The similarity in the methods of procuring wives and servants, in the terms employed in describing the transactions, and in the prices paid for each, are worthy of notice. The highest price of wives (virgins) and servants was the same. Comp. Deut. xxii. 21, 29, and Ex. xxii. 17, with Lev. xxvii. 2-8. The medium price of wives and servants was the same. Comp. Hos. iii. 2, with Ex. xxi. 32. Hosea seems to have paid one half in money and the other half in grain. Further, the Israelitish female bought servants were wives, their husbands and masters being the same persons. Ex. xxi. 8, Judg. xix. 3, 27. If buying servants proves them property, buying wives proves them property. Why not contend that the wives of the ancient fathers of the faithful were their "chattels," and used as ready change at a pinch; and thence deduce the rights of modern husbands? This use of the word buy, is not peculiar to the Hebrew. In the Syriac, the common expression for "the espoused," is "the bought." Even so late as the sixteenth century, the common record of marriages in the old German Chronicles was, "A BOUGHT B." Here "bought" is not applied that were sold unto the heathen." to persons reduced to servitude, but to those taken out of it. Prov. viii. 22. "The Lord possessed (bought) me in the beginning of his way." Prov. xix. 8. "He that getteth (buyeth) wisdom loveth his own soul." Finally, to buy is a secondary meaning of the Hebrew word kana. Ten years since servants were "bought" in New York, and still are in New Jersey, as really as in Virginia. Under the system of legal indenture in Illinois, servants now are "bought." Until recently, immigrants to this country were "bought" in great numbers. By voluntary contract they engaged to work a given time to pay for their passage. This class of persons, called “redemptioners," consisted at one time of thousands. Multitudes are "bought" out of slavery by themselves or others. Under the same roof with the writer is a "servant bought with money." A few weeks since, she was a slave; when "bought," she was a slave no longer. The transaction between Joseph and the Egyptians gives a clue to the use of "buy" and "bought with money.” Gen. xlvii.18—26. The Egyptians proposed to Joseph to become servants. When the bargain was closed, Joseph said, "Behold I have bought you this day," and yet it is plain that neither party regarded the persons bought as articles of property, but merely as bound to labour on certain conditions, to pay for their support during the famine. The idea attached by both parties to "buy us," and "behold, I have bought you," was merely that of service voluntarily offered, and secured by contract, in return for value received, and not at all that the Egyptians were bereft of their personal ownership, and made articles of property. And this buying of services (in this case it was but one-fifth part) is called in scripture usage, buying the persons. This case claims special notice, as it is the only one where the whole transaction of buying servants is detailed-the preliminaries, the process, the mutual acquiescence, and the permanent relation resulting therefrom. In all other instances, the mere fact is stated, without particulars. In this case, the whole process is laid open. 1. The persons "bought," sold themselves, and of their own accord. 2. Paying for the permanent service of persons, or even a portion of it, is called " "buying" those just as paying for the use of land or houses for a number of years in succession is called in scripture usage buying them. See Lev. XXV. 28, 33, and xxvii. 24. The objector, at the outset, takes it for granted, that servants were bought of third persons; and thence infers that they were articles of property. Both the alleged fact and the inference are sheer assumptions. No instance is recorded, under the Mosaic system, in which a master sold his servant. persons; That servants who were "bought," sold themselves, is a fair inference from various passages of scripture. In Leviticus xxv. 47, the case of the Israelite, who became the servant of the stranger, the words are, "If he SELL HIMSELF unto the stranger." Yet the 51st verse informs us that this servant was BOUGHT," " and that the price of his purchase was paid to himself. The same word, and the same form of the word, which, in verse 47, is rendered sell himself, is in verse 39 of the same chapter, rendered be sold; in Deut. xxviii. 68, the same word is rendered "be sold." "And there ye shall BE SOLD unto your enemies for bond-men and bondwomen, and NO MAN SHALL BUY YOU." How could they "be sold" without being bought? Our translation makes it nonsense. "They The word Makar rendered "be sold" is used here in Hithpael conjugation, which is generally reflexive in its force, and like the middle voice in Greek, represents what an individual does for himself, and should manifestly have been rendered "ye shall offer yourselves for sale, and there shall be no purchaser." For a clue to scripture usage on this point, see 1 Kings xxi. 20, 25,-“ Thou hast sold thyself to work evil." "There was none like unto Ahab which did sell himself to work wickedness.”—2 Kings xvii. 17. used divination and enchantments, and sold themselves to do evil." Isa. 1. 1. "For your iniquities have ye sold yourselves." Isa. lii. 3, "Ye have sold yourselves FOR NOUGHT, and ye shall be reThe word translated buy, is, like other words, modified by the deemed without money." See also, Jer. xxxiv. 14, Rom. vii. 14, nature of the subject to which it is applied. Eve said, "I have vi. 16, John viii. 34, and the case of Joseph and the Egyptians, gotten (bought) a man from the Lord." She named him Cain, already quoted. In the purchase of wives, though spoken of that is, bought. "He that heareth reproof, getteth (buyeth) rarely, it is generally stated that they were bought of third perunderstanding," Prov. xv. 32. So in Isa. xi. 11. "The Lord sons. If servants were bought of third persons, it is strange that shall set his hand again to recover (to buy) the remnant of his no instance of it is on record. people." So Psalm lxxviii. 54: "He brought them to his mountain which his right hand had purchased," (gotten). Neh. v. 8. "We of our ability have redeemed (bought) our brethren the Jews. THE ANTI-SLAVERY REPORTER Is issued ON THE FIRST OF EVERY MONTH. Whilst it has been increased to double its former size, its price, with a view to its increased circulation, both at home and abroad, has been reduced to FIVE SHILLINGS per annum, payable in advance if ordered through the Anti-Slavery Office, No. 27, NEW BROAD STREET, LONDON. The REPORTER may be ordered, also, through the usual Newsvenders. The Anti-Slavery Reporter. LONDON, WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1st, 1846. The precarious nature of our present relations with the United States has awakened the attention of British politicians to the great importance of obtaining cotton wool from sources which would render England wholly independent of that country for its supplies. At the present time, it may be said, that the largest and most lucrative branch of our home trade, as well as our foreign commerce, would be exposed to serious hazard, should hostilities unhappily break out between the two countries. As the friends of peace-of permanent and universal peace, and in view of those higher considerations which should influence civilized and Christian men, we not only deprecate war, but would use our utmost exertions to prevent it. War, as it is the greatest evil that can afflict nations during its continuance, is also the greatest crime that they can perpetrate. War, under any pretence, between Great Britain and the United States would be especially criminal, owing, as they do, their origin to a common ancestry, speaking a common language, professing the same religion, and linked together by a thousand ties, which ought never to be broken. We trust divine Providence will so guide their counsels as that peace may be maintained; and the cause of difficulty be amicably and honourably removed. It is not, however, on the ground of our present relations with the United States, important as that may be in the eyes of politicians, that we would seek our supplies of cotton wool from other countries, but because, in the cultivation of that article, the liberty of nearly three millions of our fellow-creatures is trodden under foot, and a despotism, at once the most sordid and the most cruel, built up and consolidated. Who can reflect for a moment on the law and the practice of slavery in the United States without the utmost abhorrence, and without feeling it to be a sacred duty to use every legitimate means for its overthrow? Our commercial intercourse with the United States has hitherto strengthened the institution of slavery. It has given new edge to the weapons of oppression, and force to the arms that wielded them. Let us henceforth adopt a wiser and more humane policy, and determine to cripple and destroy that evil to which we have hitherto unhappily given a giant's power. These 4,000 square miles, a mere fraction of India, would, at the rate Another writer in the Chronicle points out the immense good Under present circumstances, with all the burdens upon the land, and restraints upon the industry of the natives, and the cost of transport, to which it is gratifying to know the home government is not indifferent, India sends us at present enough cotton wool annually to keep the price of that from the United States at a low figure, and to supersede to a considerable extent, the cotton formerly received from Brazil. And a still further increase in our supplies from India may be anticipated. At the last meeting of the Royal Asiatic Society a paper was read from Professor Royle, the distinguished botanist of the East India Company, detailing further results of the experimental trials for the culture of cotton in India. Since the last report of Dr. Wight, it appears, 30,000 acres had been put into cultivation, whilst from one acre alone the produce was 700 pounds, and more was to be expected. All that is now wanted to make East India cotton a most valuable export commodity, is the employment of European agents in the India markets to select the best qualities. It is satisfactory to know that cotton wool can now be obtained in large quantities, and of good quality, from various parts of the world, the produce of free labour. British India already sends a large supply to this country and China, and that can be extended to an indefinite extent when the means of cheap and easy transit from the interior to the coast shall be secured by railroads and steam navigation on the rivers. Dr. Wight, the superintendent of the Government Cotton Farms, in the Madras Presidency, in a late communication to the Morning Chronicle, speaks in the most confident terms of the successful results of the late experiment with American cotton seed in Southern India. This gentleman says: "In answer to the prevalent opinion among Americans, that all attempts to cultivate American cotton in India has failed, I am now able to state, as the result actually obtained in the course of our experiment during two consecutive years, and neither of these favourable ones, that our lands, when sown at the proper season, are capable of yielding from 1000 to 1200 pounds per acre." In reference to quality, Dr. Wight observes: "As regards the quality of Indian grown American cotton, I believe that the crop now picking is not inferior to any New Orleans grown on the banks of the Mississippi." And with respect to quantity, he adds: “India is well able to respond to the call of the English manufacturers for supplies. The four southern provinces of the Peninsula-Coim-up on both sides of the Atlantic a determination, on the part of the batore, Salem, Madura, and Tinnivelly-all cotton growing districts, include an area of above 28,500 square miles, 4,000 of which might, nay would, be annually under cotton cultivation in the event of a rise in the price of only one farthing per pound in the local markets. Subsidiary to the grand question of the supply of free-labour cotton wool to our manufacturers, we rejoice to observe springing purchasers of cotton fabrics, to use those which are manufactured solely from materials produced by the labour of freemen. At Philadelphia, United States, a society has been formed to promote the use of this kind of goods alone. We learn from the Non-Slave |
