birthright of certain parties, he still persisted in assuring the British nation that he had never touched the subject in a political aspect! Now what political rights does he claim for the free blacks--and denounce all America for refusing, on account of this prejudice against color? Is it right of suffrage? is it right of office? is it perfect, personal, and political equality? If not, what does he mean? But if he means that it already exists in all the free States and in several of the slave States, in behalf of the free blacks, to a far greater extent than the same exists in England, as between the privileged classes and the bulk of the nation, though all are white,--I boldly assert, that a greater part of the free men of color in America did enjoy perfect political privileges at the rise of abolitionism, than of the white men of Britain at this day. There were more free black voters in North America, in proportion to the free black race, than there are white voters in all Britain, in proportion to the white inhabitants of the British empire. And this, even leaving out the red millions of the East, and the black thousands of the West-Indies; and making the Reform Bill the basis of calculation! If some have been deprived of these privileges, let abolitionists blame themselves. If in most places these privileges have been dormant, it only proves that their exercise was a very secondary advantage--that the present outcry is but the more wicked and absurd. As to the social rights which were demanded for the slaves and free blacks both, there seemed to be a complete confusion of ideas in the minds of the abolitionists. Did they mean to say that all distinctions and gradations of rank were iniquitous, or did they mean that men ought to enjoy rights because they were black, which were justly denied to the whites? Who had ever heard of a nobleman marrying a gipsy? or, of a king of England marrying a laborer's daughter? But the fact was, everything tended to prove that in preaching against the alleged prejudice against color, the abolitionists were really advocating general amalgamation. There were three opinions on the the subject: 1st. That in a State situated like most of those in America, public policy required the mixture of the races to be prohibited; so that, in nearly all the States, intermarriages were prohibited, and in many States they were punishable as a felony with fine or imprisonment. 2d. That the practice was inexpedient, but so far innocent as to be left to the discretion of the parties, which he believed was the opinion of sober-minded people generally in this country. 3d. That, as the chief practical objection to it is a sinful prejudice against color, that prejudice is to be broken down, and the contrary right upheld, as neither improper nor inexpedient, when voluntarily exercised. This last, or even a much stronger advocacy of amalgamation, is the doctrine of abolitionism; facts deducible from