people who subscribe for it, understand nothing whatever about it. The blazon-loving herd of dowagers, and the more modest herd of initialists, are acquitted with equal ease by the candour of a Christian public such as ours. But if this Association, thus propped, thus fed, errs—if it libels you or me in its Report-if its agitations fill you or me with rational fear for our lives, or our fortunes-what is to be done? What is the use of indicting all the letters of the alphabet, or what avails a claim of damages brought by one injured individual against a purse which is as inexhaustible as the widow's cruize, because all the wealthy widows, from Land's-End to John-o'Groat's, think they do God good service by clubbing their mites to replenish it? Parliamentary privilege is not à surer shield than this privilege of HUMBUGS. The evil has increased is increasing-and must be diminished.

Far, however, be it from us to attribute seriously any bad intentions to those who have been chiefly active in the establishing and supporting of the greater proportion of these institutions. It is not deliberate evil intention that we dream of ascribing to them-it is the mere evil of dulness-the sin of narrow views and violent prejudices the exaltation of shallow brains-the tyranny of some one particular set of feelings unopposed by any capacity for understanding the range of circumstances by which their operation ought to be bounded. This is the sort of sin which we must lay more especially to the charge of "the African Institution," in some of the recent operations, and, above all, publications, of that very extensive and very formidable association of names and pur

ses.

Mr Wilberforce and Mr Zachary Macaulay are the two leading characters in this Institution. Nobody can doubt that these are two most worthy men. Nobody can doubt that one of them at least has done much good in his generation. But does any body dream of attributing talents of any extraordinary importance to both or to either of them? Nobody whatever. Good worthy Mr Wilberforce -excellent Mr Macaulay. These are the epithets they are known by, even among their own warmest worshippers. But are these the only epithets which

ought to characterize men who dash on adventures such as theirs-Men who volunteer to manage the concerns, and some of the very greatest concerns, too, of this great and enlightened empire? Are these "fine bodies" (as Dr Chalmers would call them) the sort of people to ride the whirlwind and direct the storm of polity?-No -no. They have totally mistaken the matter; nature and education have qualified them for vestry meetings and tavern dinners. They have stepped "ultra crepidam," and it is high time they should retreat again to their own sphere.

What insane ambition is this that agitates these worthy philanthropists? Why is it that THEY must meddle with everything?-Why is it that they neglect the Strand, and its myriads of street-walkers, to sigh over the "licentiousness" of Barbadoes? Why, within smell of St Giles's, do they howl about the degradation of the children of Ham? Have they no bowels for the tread-mill? Have they no sympathics for Smithfield? No horror for the hulks? Are not the Irish still fed on watery potatoes, and the Latin Bible? Do not peat-reek and crowdie still load the atmosphere of the Highland cabin, and mock the stomachs of its unfortunate inhabitants?

The subject is truly one of the deepest gravity-the consequences to be apprehended from this craze are most appalling; and yet, when one looks to the men rather than the thing, it is really a matter of no inconsiderable difficulty to adopt any other tone than one which may easily be mistaken for that of levity. We are conscious of this, however, and we are not unconscious that another line must be adopted, if any serious good is to be done; and we shall therefore do our best endeavour to keep our eyes fixed rather on the magnitude, the tremendous magnitude, of the danger, the existence of which few can be so blind as not to see, than on the benevolent imbecility of the individuals in whose proceedings (unless they be speedily and effectually checked) this peril is involved.

There is no need, surely, that we should say one word in explanation of our views concerning the great question of the abolition of the slave trade. We feel-and we demand it as our right, that we shall be believed to the very

letter when we say this-we feel as much pride in that great event as any of our readers can be disposed to do. We regard it as one of the greatest and most glorious achievements of the spirit of the age in which we live. Nay, we go farther than many even of those who sympathize most warmly with us as to this matter, may as yet be prepared for accompanying us. In one word, we conceive that the English Government ought to declare the traffic in slaves piracy. Good Heavens! are we to be told that there is that virtuous, confessedly virtuous, thing in this world, which the Government of the United States of America has dared to do, and which ours dares not set its face to? We cannot suffer this degrading chimera to stand unrebuked before us. We demand of the Ministers of England, the pride as well as the benevolence of the English spirit. We laugh to see Mr Canning and Lord Liverpool subscribing their ten guineas a-piece to the African Institution-an institution which has, or ought to have, nothing at all to do with the polity of this great nation. We smile to see them giving the support of their names even to this extent, to an Association which dares to meddle with things so totally beyond its province. If these statesmen are sincere enemies, as who can doubt they are, to everything in the shape of a slave trade, let them say so within the walls of Parliament, not in the Appendix to Mr Wilberforce's pamphlet. Let them say boldly, Is it the sense of the British Senate, that such or such things ought to be done-Ay, or no? No fear for the answer. But let not THEM at least countenance this system of irresponsible Parliaments, without the walls of the responsible place. Let not THEM Compromise the character of the offices with which they are invested, and, through that, the character of the nation by which they are trusted. Let others speak, if they will. It becomes these men, and such as these, to remember, that in their case, speechification never is, at least never should be, the end, but the mean-that their own dignity, and, above all, that the majesty of the empire whose first servants they are, requires at their hands something very different from the conduct in which private individuals may occasionally be indulged. Let others speak, if they will, in taverns

or in pamphlets-these men are the ministers and the representatives of England, and their speaking should always have action at its back-effectual action, national action-the arm and the strength of an empire, not the jingle of ten guineas.

We are well aware that some part of this language may appear unbecoming in us; but really it seems to us that the distinguished, enlightened, and philanthropic statesman, who now represents his Majesty's Colonial Government in the House of Commons, owes it to himself, and to the country, to be a little more careful than he has been, in regard to the maintenance of some apparent consistency of conduct respecting this great and important question of policy. When we turn to the African Institution, what do we see? We see a host of "pamphlets," "Reports,' Appendices," "Statements," "Views," "Appeals," and what not, all proceeding from the same quarter -all characterized by the same glaring specimens of rashness and fanatical zeal-all abounding in incorrect narration of facts, and teeming with diatribes of the most inflammatory tendency. We see these, and the just feelings of distrust which necessarily arise within us, do not indeed prevent us from believing that the two or three individuals, in whom alone the whole of these things originate, are well-meaning, good, worthy, benevolent peoplenot at all-but we certainly do see quite enough to satisfy us, that these wellmeaning people are treading upon most delicate and dangerous groundthat they are outstepping their own sphere, and violating every principle of rational prudence. We see all this, and we turn to the end of any one of their REPORTS;-and there, at the end of these rash and ill-advised programmes of impracticable polity and mistaken zeal, we see the name of "The Right Honourable George Canning," duly blazoned, as an annual subscriber to the fund, by which all the cxpenses of this perilous paper-battery are defrayed. We see this, and we turn back to the file of last winter's newspapers; and what do we find there?-Why, do we not find a long series of columns, occupied with the particulars of a most solemn debate in the House of Commons- debate, in the course of which the Leading Men of the African Instition spouted all

their own old pamphlets over again, in the shape of speeches; and in the course of which, all these pamphletspeeches were most beautifully, clearly, and convincingly proved to be filled with flagrant inaccuracies, and pregnant with appalling dangers-by whom?-Why, by this very man, this very statesman, who allows his eminent name to figure, year after year, in the list of those by whose contributions alone these rash men are enabled to do what requires the utmost exertion of his parliamentary eloquence and authority, and that of his colleagues, to counteract and keep within any tolerable limits. Such is, really and simply, the true state of the case; and we certainly have a great deal too much respect for the character of this preeminently accomplished statesman, not to be anxious for the disappearance of a circumstance which, it is impossible to deny, furnishes his enemies with a fair pretence for charging him with the fault of personal inconsistencya fault from which we know of no public life that is, upon the whole, more proudly free than his glorious

one.

But to the question-and, after all, it is, in the shape recent events have given it, a very narrow one. It is admitted on all hands that SLAVERY is, in its essence, a bad thing. It is admitted on all hands that the abolition of the slave trade confers honour on this age of British legislation. That abolition, followed up by the registry enactments (of which it is unnecessary to say anything more at present) has, in spite of all the insinuations of the African Association agitators, put an end, completely and effectually put an end, to the introduction of new slaves from Africa into the British West Indian colonies. Mr Wilberforce and his brother pamphlet-writers do insinuate that this is not so-but their insinuations are made, not only without the slightest support in the shape of facts, but in the teeth of an array of solemn assertions, which have convinced all the rest of the world except the few who will not believe that black is black, if they see the converse of that proposition maintained by Messrs Wilberforce and Macaulay, and enforced with quotations from the Pentateuch and the Apealypse, in the sage and authoritative pages of their organ," the Christian Observer." We say that it is proved to the satisfaction of the world,

that an effectual stop has been put to the introduction of any new slaves into any of his Majesty's West Indian colonies. This being the case, the only remaining subject for rational consideration is that of the condition of the slaves actually there. It is admitted on all hands, that it is much to be regretted there should be eight hundred thousand human beings living in this condition within the dominions of the King of England. This was admitted -or rather, we should say, this was taken for granted, in every speech that was delivered, either on the one or the other side of the question, in the course of the debate on Mr Buxton's motion in the last session of Parliament. At the conclusion of that debate, Mr Buxton withdrew his motion; and a series of counter-resolutions, proposed by Mr Canning, were unanimously adopted by the House of Commons. These resolutions embody an admission, as large and full as any human being can desire, that the condition of slavery is an evil. They embody also the solemn belief of the British House of Commons, that the existence of this condition cannot be done away with in the West Indian colonies of this empire, under any circumstances, or by any other means, than those of a most deliberate, gradual, and sober charac ter. And, to conclude, the circumstances under which these resolutions were brought forward, and under which they were unanimously adopted by Parliament, render it absolutely impossible for any sane man to deny that the British Ministry has given its most solemn pledge to the British Legislature, that everything which Government can do, will be done for the gradual improvement of the condition of the slaves-for the gradually bringing of them into that state wherein freedom may be beneficially conferred on them-due regard being had, by careful preparations, moral, political, and economical, to the bringing of these colonies at large, and everything connected with them, into such a state as may admit of that change being effected, without the infliction of patrimonial injury upon those who possess property-vested under the eye, the patronage, and the protection of the Crown and Parliament of England-in the soil and shipping of these ancient and valuable appendages of this empire.

This is the state in which the con

clusion of that most interesting discussion in the House of Commons left this matter. Messrs Buxton and Wilberforce both spoke largely in that debate. They were both of them parties to the solemn act in which it concluded. And what has happened since? In the course of the debate, the different reports of the African Institution were continually quoted by the speakers on Mr Buxton's side. The speech of Mr Wilberforce was almost a literal copy of a pamphlet which had been published shortly before, under the express patronage of the African Institution. The African Institution, therefore, appeared there in the persons of Wilberforce and his coadjutors. They came as its representatives and advocates-and mouth pieces. They came, and they went away-if there was any meaning or faith in their votes-satisfied-and good reason that they should.

But what has happened since? Why, the African Institution could scarcely with any face come forward again. That institution could scarcely stir immediately after its great leaders and organs had professed themselves to be satisfied. The treaty had been signed and sealed, and could not be with any decency broken at once, visibly and openly broken, ere any time whatever has been allowed to the Ministry for shewing by what means they designed to redeem the solemn pledge they had so recently and so generously given. No-but there is another society-another Institution-another Association, which had not been brought so prominently forward in that debate, or in the pamphlets by which the public mind was so elaborately prepared for its occurrence. There was still the "Society for the Mitigation of Slavery"-this body had not been compromised-this body had been no party to the treaty-this body was still free to speak and to publish.

It has done so.-Under its patronage, a new tribe of pamphlets has been, from month to month, showered upon the public. In these productions all the same blunders are reiterated in almost the same words-in them all the same inflammatory cant has been dealed out again in fifty new shapes, and with, we blush to speak it, fifty new exaggerations.-And who are the people that preside over this Second Association? Uno avulso non deficit VOL. XIV.

alter-who are they?-Alter et idem. The patron and president of both is the Duke of Gloucester. Mr Buxton, a vice-president of the one, is a direc tor of the other. Mr Wilberforce stands in the same relation to both. So does Mr Macaulay. In short, everybody who glances over the lists of the managers of these Associations, sees at once that they are in fact the creatures of the very same people-that they are, in other words, just two different names for the same thing. Now these great characters have done this. The fact is clear, certain, undisputed, and indisputable, that they have acted in this manner.

Beaten down in the House of Commons by the rational eloquence which Mr Canning wielded, and by the judicious remarks with which Messrs Baring and other mercantile members of the highest character, reinforced the Right Honourable Secretary, they found that they could do no better than submit with a good grace at the moment. They did submit-the pledge was offered-accepted. It was offered by Mr Canning, in the name and on the behalf of the British Government, and it was accepted by these men in their own names; and, if there was any meaning in one word they uttered, on the behalf of that Association, which had all along been completely identified with them-which, not to waste words, everybody knew and knows never had any existence, except in their persons and operations.

With this pledge in their pockets, they took their departure from the House of Commons; and, within two months after they so took their departure, a Report of this very debate was published by their "Society for the Mitigation," &c., with long appendices, stuffed with relentless reiterations of all the old matter-with laborious attacks upon Mr Canning, and all the other speakers on his side-with ponderous buttresses to the shaken-down arguments of the Buxtons and the Wilberforces. In short, this Slave' Trade, at least, has been unblushingly renewed with greater vigour than ever-renewed in the same bottomsand renewed with scarcely the semblance of hoisting a new set of colours. Is such conduct worthy of British statesmen? Are these restless, inconsistent, unreasonable mortals, the proper guides for the English mind?

3 K