But we will make this still plainer. Lord Aberdeen, to prevent the possibility of mistake as to the views of the British government in relation to slavery, sends a despatch to Mr. Packenham for our government, which, for accuracy of expression and precision of statement, can not be surpassed. We have determined to present it to our readers and we ask for it an attentive perusal.

"FOREIGN OFFICE, Dec. 26, 1843. "Sir:-As much agitation appears to have prevailed of late in the United States relative to the designs which Great Britain is supposed to entertain with regard to the Republic of Texas, Her Majesty's government deem it expedient to take measures for stopping at once the misrepresentations which have been circulated, and the errors into which the government of the United States seems to have fallen on the subject of the policy of Great Britain with respect to Texas. That policy is clear and simple, and

be stated in a few words.

may

"Great Britain has recognized the independence of Texas, and, having done so, she is desirous of seeing that independence finally and formally established, and generally recognized, especially by Mexico. But this desire does not arise from any motive of ambition or of self-interest, at least, which attaches to the general extension of our commercial dealings with other countries.

"We are convinced that the recognition of Texas by Mexico must conduce to the benefit of both these countries, and, as we take an interest in the well being of both, and in their steady advance in power and wealth, we have put ourselves forward in pressing the government of Mexico to acknowledge Texas as independent. But in thus acting we have no occult design, either with reference to any peculiar interest which we might seek to establish in Mexico or in Texas, or even with reference to the slavery which now exists, and which we desire to see abolished in Texas.

"With regard to the latter point, it must be and is well known both to the United States and to the whole world, that Great Britain desires, and is constantly exerting herself to procure, the general abolition of slavery throughout the world. But the means which she has adopted, and will continue to adopt, for this humane and virtuous purpose, are open and undisguised. She will do nothing secretly or underhand. She desires that her motives may be generally understood, and her acts seen by all.

"With regard to Texas, we avow

that we wish to see slavery abolished there, as elsewhere, and we should rejoice if the recognition of that country by the Mexican government should be accompanied by an engagement on the part of Texas to abolish slavery eventually, and under proper conditions, throughout the Republic. But although we earnestly desire and feel it to be our duty to promote such a consummation, we shall not interfere unduly, or with an improper assumption of authority, with either party, in order to ensure the adoption of such a course. We shall counsel, but we shall not seek to compel, or unduly control, either party. So far as Great Britain is concerned, provided other states act with equal forbearance, those governments will be fully at liberty to make their own unfettered arrangements with each other, both in regard to the abolition of slavery and to all other points.

"Great Britain, moreover, does not desire to establish in Texas, whether par tially dependent on Mexico or entirely independent, (which latter alternative we consider in every respect preferable) any dominant influence. She only desires to share her influence equally with all other nations. Her objects are purely commercial, and she has no thought or intention of seeking to act, directly or indirectly, in a political sense, on the United States through Texas.

"The British government, as the United States well know, have never sought in any way to stir up disaffection or ex citement of any kind in the slaveholding States of the American Union. Much as we should wish to see those States placed on the firm and solid footing which we conscientiously believe is to be attained by general freedom alone, we have never in our treatment of them made any dif ference between the slaveholding and free States of the Union. All are, in our eyes, entitled, as component members of the Union, to equal political respect, favor, and forbearance, on our part. To that wise and just policy we shall con tinue to adhere; and the governments of the slaveholding States may be assured that, although we shall not desist from those open and honest efforts which we have constantly made for procuring the abolition of slavery throughout the world, we shall neither openly nor secretly resort to any measures which can tend to disturb their internal tranquillity, or thereby to affect the prosperity of the Ameri can Union.

"You will communicate this dispatch to the United States Secretary of State, and if he should desire it, you will leave a copy of it with him.

I am, &c., ABERDEEN. Right Hon. RICHARD PACKENHAM, &c."

468

government rests, the President directs me to inform you that a treaty has been

concluded between the United States and Texas, for the annexation of the latter to the former as a part of its territory."

Thus, not only has the government adopted it as a measure of policy, to counteract the influence of England against slavery, but it regards it as a constitutional obligation. We are bound by the Constitution to annex Texas and every other neighboring country, where there is any danger that the arguments of England may avail to the overthrow of slavery. This, by their allegiance to the Constitution the people owe to the slaveholding States; and there will be nullification, we suppose, if it is not done, and the dissolution of the Union from those who say that the government has nothing to do with slavery-nothing to do with it but to make it perpetual here and everywhere

else.

Can there be anything beyond

this?

maintain the cause of servitude against the whole civilized and Christian world, and that in the case of Texas, we are to annex it to this country, not as so much territory, but to anticipate and to provide against the danger that Texas might yield to the counsel of Great Britain and abolish slavery.

in

It may be thought that the rejec tion of the treaty is a rejection of the principles upon which it was negotia ted; and that the question now before the people is to be placed on dif ferent grounds. We can not so regard it. The matter of fact is, that the government was under the control of southern statesmen, who, these documents, doubtless express the wishes, and sentiments, and principles of the great body of the southern people. These are just the same now as they were before the treaty was rejected, and if Texas comes into the Union, it will be brought in by that portion of the people who hold them. We go farther. If the slaveholding States are fully determined that slavery shall be perpetuated for ever-if they are fixed upon this point that they and their descendants through all generations must have slaves or be ruined, then we say that Mr. Calhoun, and Mr. McDuffie, and other leading statesmen of the south, have adopted the only policy adapted

ones !*

secure that end. The abolition of slavery is, as we have before said, the great moral question of the age. which is now before the world. It It is the grand question in civilization has, therefore, concentrated upon itself, more talents, more piety, and hope, and benevolence, more ener gy and zeal than, taking the world yearly becoming more and more enthrough, all other questions, and it is grossing. It would be idle for southern statesmen to blind their eyes to the fact, that the excitement among the people against slavery is not the sudden ebullition of enthusiasm, but ber minded men--that the movement the permanent feeling of wise and soagainst it is not the movement of a

few, soon to stop, but of the great body of all free and civilized communities that, instead of diminishing, conscientious hostility to slavery is becoming fixed deeper and deeper in the hearts of Christians throughout the church-that the current of the literature of the world is setting stronger and stronger against it, and that the governments of the earth have been found to take their stand against it. They are not blind to this fact, and they know where the danger lies. They know that the danger is not that slavery will be overthrown by violence-not that it will be abolished by legislative enactments in Congress-not that it will be undermined by foreign intrigue, but it is, that the consciences of slaveholders themselves may be reached and conquered; it is, that they themselves can not always resist the earnest appeals of the Christian church and the convictions of the best portions of mankind formed after long deliberation, of the wrongfulness of slavery, and the public opinion of the world, manifested in literature, and in social and public life.

Hence, with broad forecast the leading statesmen and scholars of the south have for some time past striven to unite the southern people in the common sentiment that slavery is a real blessing, or at any rate can never be abolished; and, when of late the opportunity was most unexpectedly placed within their reach, they eagerly seized upon it to bring the example and the whole authority of this nation on the side of the perpetuity of slavery, in order to meet and counteract the influence of other nations and the public opinion of the world. This is what Texas is wanted for. Mr. Tyler may be influenced by a ridiculous ambition; others may have still less worthy motives, but the really great statesmen of the south have taken a far wider view. They desire Texas for no personal motives-they do not desire it as so

much territory-they desire it, to destroy the possibility of abolishing slavery there-they desire it, above all, because they want the example and authority of the government on the side of perpetual slavery. It was no hasty and inconsiderate declaration of Mr. Calhoun, that the people of the United States are bound by the Constitution, not merely not to interfere with slavery for its overthrow, but to do for it what each State as an independent sovereignty would have done for its safety against damage from without or within. He would have the broad shield of the Constitution and of the nation cast around the system of slavery as a perpetual institution against the public opinion of the world.

This question,

The question, then, is not changed by the rejection of the treaty. The ground exists now as before, and the same men are engaged in it. Indeed, we are not sure but that the rejection will be an advantage to them. For, having with wonderful skill and sagacity joined the question of the perpetuity of slavery with the ascendency of democratic principles, if they succeed, they will have committed not merely the government but the nation to the cause of perpetual slavery. and this particular aspect of it, has been forced upon the country. The subject which both the great parties have agreed in keeping apart from the contests of politics, is now brought to the ballot-box. Let it be remembered, then, that the true question is, not whether Texas shall be united to us in spite of its slavery, but whether it shall be united to us on purpose to perpetuate slavery there and everywhere else. Let it be remembered that the true question is, whether the people of this nation shall by a direct vote proclaim themselves the supporters of perpetual slavery against the civilized and Christian world?

THE city and county of Philadelphia have gained an unenviable distinction of late years, as the theatre of popular tumults. In fact it would seem that if any great ecclesiastical strife, like that of the Presbyterians, or the Friends, is to agitate the community, or any moral or political question, like that of Abolition, or Naturalization, is to excite rancorous discussions and lead to violence and bloodshed, the city of "brotherly love" is chosen as the scene of action, as a burlesque upon the name. Though almost every city of the Union has been disgraced by riots, though even the sober capital of New England has in its environs the blackened ruins of a convent as a monument of the fury of a mob, Philadelphia is most conspicu ous for scenes of disorder and outrage. Who has not heard of the burning of Pennsylvania Hall?—of the destruction of the dwellings and even the lives of the blacks, and the driving of many of their wives and children to the opposite Jersey shore, to remain for days in terror without food or shelter, to punish them for receiving the attention of certain white ladies and gentlemen whose tastes led them that way, or to teach them to discriminate between the inside and outside of the walk? Who has not heard of the railroad riots, in which the track of the Philadelphia and Trenton railroad was torn up by the inhabitants of the Kensington district, (through some misunderstanding with the company,) and the men employed to re-lay it were driven from their work with clubs and stones and even with fire arms? Who has not heard of the "strikes" among the weavers and other classes of laboring men, and of their riotous proceedings against the property and persons of their employers, or of those of their

own class who refused to unite with them? Who has not heard of the weekly desecration of the Sabbath by the collisions of rival fire companies, resulting often in bloodshed and death? Who has not heard -but we will not continue the painful enumeration.

Of late, however, Philadelphia has outdone herself in scenes of popular violence; and the 6th, 7th, and 8th of May, will hereafter be remembered as her trois jours, though of a different stamp from those of Paris.

In offering a few reflections upon the events of those days it will be necessary for us to exhibit the more important of them in the form of a consecutive narrative. We shall first attempt to give our readers a definite idea of the locality of the these riots. It is difficult for one not familiar with the manner in which Philadelphia is districted, to understand how a mob can so easily gain the ascendency there; and much gratuitous reproach is heaped upon the authorities of the city for not regulating that which in reality lies beyond their control.

Philadelphia lies between the Delaware and Schuylkill rivers, a few miles above their junction. These rivers, two miles apart, constitute its eastern and western boundaries. The streets parallel with the river, (i. e. running north and south,) are regularly numbered from each river to a street near the centre of the city called Broad street. These streets are intersected at right an gles by others running east and west from river to river. That which is commonly called Philadelphia ex tends in its greatest length about four miles from north to south; but the city proper extends only one mile in that direction. Adjacent to the city, and separated from it and from each