“The partisanship of the People’s Convention all centres in opposition to Charles Sumner. It is as pure an instance of personal hate on the part of its leaders as was ever exhibited. _This animosity comes solely from the fact that he was the earliest and has been the most persistent advocate of what is now the policy of the nation._ They hate Mr. Sumner, not because he is personally unamiable, not because there is a flaw in his moral character or a doubt as to the purity of his intentions, not because he has not represented the opinion of Massachusetts, and faithfully advocated her best interests on every point affecting her material prosperity. They have commenced this personal crusade _solely_ because he has been the most conspicuous and uncompromising foe to the encroachments of Southern Slavery. And now that the President has ranged himself on Mr. Sumner’s side, in opposing him they oppose the Administration.” On the next day, the Democratic Convention at Worcester adopted the nominations of the “People’s Convention,” so that the elements of opposition seemed to be united. The President of the Convention in his remarks announced the common object. “Let me, then, appeal to you to come here with one heart and with kindly feelings towards all, entertaining respect for the opinions of all, so that, when this Convention shall have adjourned, a voice will go forth throughout this Commonwealth, that the day of John A. Andrew and Charles Sumner is ended. [_Prolonged cheers._]” Other speeches followed in the same tone, and insisting upon union “to beat Sumner and Andrew.” The issue was thus presented to the people of Massachusetts, and throughout the Commonwealth the election of Senators and Representatives turned mainly upon it. If the attack was vigorous, so also was the defence. Of the latter a few illustrations will suffice. The first is from Wendell Phillips, who, in an address at Music Hall, Sunday forenoon, November 2d, said:--