despite of us, they have done well. Again: '_It is not our fault that we have failed_; it is not theirs.' We _are_ wholly and exclusively in fault. What have we done to raise them up from the earth? What have we _not_ done to keep them down? Once more: 'It has resulted from a cause over which neither they, nor we, can ever have control.' In other words, they have been made with skins not colored like our own,' and _therefore_ we cannot recognise them as fellow-countrymen, or treat them like rational beings! One sixth of our whole population _must_, FOR EVER, in this land, remain a wretched, ignorant and degraded race,--and yet nobody be culpable--_none but the Creator_ who has made us _incapable_ of doing unto others as we would have them do unto us! Horrible--horrible! If this be not an impeachment of Infinite Goodness,--I do not say intentionally but _really_,--I cannot define it. The same sentiment is reiterated by a writer in the Southern Religious Telegraph, who says--'The exclusion of the free black from the civil and literary privileges of our country, depends on another circumstance than that of character--a circumstance, which, as it was entirely beyond his control, so it is unchangeable, and will for ever operate. This circumstance is--_he is a black man_'!! And the Board of Managers of the Parent Society, in their Fifteenth Annual Report, declare that '_an ordination of Providence_' prevents the general improvement of the people of color in this land! How are God and our country dishonored, and the requirements of the gospel contemned, by this ungodly plea! Having satisfied himself that the Creator is alone blameable for the past and present degradation of the free blacks, Dr. Nott draws the natural and unavoidable inference that 'here, therefore, they must be _for ever debased, for ever useless, for ever a nuisance, for ever a calamity_,' and then gravely declares (mark the climax!) 'and yet THEY, [these ignorant, helpless, miserable creatures!] AND THEY ONLY, are qualified for colonizing Africa'!! 'Why then,' he asks, '_in the name of God_,'--(the abrupt appeal, in this connexion, seems almost profane,)--'should we hesitate to encourage their departure?'