_Slavery._—Every English trader or hunter that made a long stay in this land figured as an enemy of the slave trade, began to receive refugees, and after a time found himself surrounded by a small colony in which he had to act as governor. He felt it absurd to apply to the neighbouring chief for assistance in civil matters. His relation to the native chief cannot be better explained than by an incident like the following:—“One morning the hunter wishes to set out on a journey, and requires a large number of men. He sends a messenger to request the native chief to send him some of his people. The chief sends back word that he ‘can send no men to-day as he has a beer-drinking’. On receiving this intelligence the European says to the messenger, ‘Go back and tell the chief that if he does not send me men at once I will come up and flog him!’ In a very short time the messenger returns with more men than are required, while the chief sends, at the same time, a very humble apology!” Such being the character of a native chief each European was a “great king,” and was expected to be ready to defend all the subjects that he received, by his power, or in other words, by the usual wars. Now, although a position of this kind might be taken by Industrial Agents or Traders, it was clearly a false position for a Missionary, who, being sent with a message for “every creature,” must stand forth as equally friendly to all classes of the community. As I mingled more with our neighbours, I saw that our reception of runaway slaves had alienated many excellent men who might have been our best friends, and who were better able to rule slaves than we. If the colonial work disappeared the purely Missionary work would be more successful, and the colonial work might gradually be suffered to disappear if slave refugees were denied an asylum.