“_Resolved_, That we approve the thorough, truthful, and comprehensive examination of the institution of Slavery embraced in Mr. Sumner’s recent speech; that the stern morality of that speech, its logic, and its power command our entire admiration; and that it expresses with fidelity the sentiments of Massachusetts upon the question therein discussed.” The meaning of these resolutions was not left doubtful by the mover, J. Q. A. Griffin, who, after alluding to “certain Conservative Republican newspapers, such as the _New York Times_ and the _Courier and Enquirer_, declaring that Mr. Sumner does not represent the Republican party in any degree,” said, “It is necessary that Massachusetts should uphold her Senator.” * * * * * The conflict of opinion in the American press showed itself abroad. The London _Times_ took the lead in opposition. Its New York correspondent, entitled “Our own Correspondent,” in a letter dated June 6, said of the speech: “A more studied insult to Southern slaveholding members, who compose nearly one half of the body in which the speech was delivered, a more vituperative attack upon the institution, a more bitter, galling, personal assault, or one more calculated to excite the worst feelings, can hardly be imagined.” Then quoting certain passages without explanation or context, and asking the reader to “bear in mind that one half of the gentlemen who listened to him were slaveholders,” the New York correspondent adds, “These extracts are sample bricks of the whole structure.” The _Times_ itself followed in a leader of June, 18, where the tone of its New York correspondent was reproduced; and here is the beginning of those attacks on the Antislavery cause in our country for which this journal became so famous during the war. An extract will show its character.