It will be said again, that the fourth case, consisting of the Sierra Leone captured Negroes, _is not strictly analogous_ to the one in point. These had probably been slaves but _for a short time_,--say a few months, including the time which elapsed between their reduction to slavery and their embarkation from Africa, and between this their embarkation and their capture upon the ocean. They had scarcely been slaves when they were returned to the rank of free men. Little or no change therefore could have been effected in so short an interim in their disposition and their character; and, as they were never carried to the West Indies, so they never could have contracted the bad habits, or the degradation or vices, of the slavery there. It will be contended therefore, that they were _better_, _or less hazardous_, subjects for _emancipation_, than the slaves in our colonies. I admit this objection, and I give it its full weight. I admit it to be _less hazardous_ to emancipate a _new_ than an _old_ slave. And yet the case of the Sierra Leone captured Negroes is a very strong one. They were all _Africans_. They were all _slaves_. They must have contracted _as mortal a hatred of the whites_ from their sufferings on board ship by fetters, whips, and suffocation in the hold, as the West Indian from those severities which are attached to their bondage upon shore. Under these circumstances then we find them _made free_; but observe, not after any _preparatory_ discipline, but almost _suddenly_, and _not singly_, but _in bodies_ at a time. We find them also settled or made to live under the _unnatural_ government of the _whites_; and, what is more extraordinary, we find their present number, as compared with that of the whites in the same colony, nearly as _one hundred and fifty to one_; notwithstanding which superiority fresh emancipations are constantly taking place, as fresh cargoes of the captured arrive in port.