My friend, Daniel Neall, at whose house this interview took place, is a venerable looking man, a native of Delaware, and son-in-law of the excellent Warner Mifflin.  He has been an abolitionist from his boyhood.  Two years ago, he was dragged from the house of a friend in Delaware, and tarred and feathered, and otherwise mal-treated by a mob of slave-holders and their abettors; he mildly told those near him that if they would call at his house at Philadelphia, he would treat them in a very different manner.  He was president of the Pennsylvania Hall Association, and in the terrible mobs of 1838, manifested a calm, quiet courage, as rare as it is commendable.

I remained in Philadelphia until the morning of the 28th, and during this interval paid many visits, and obtained much information, on the state of the anti-slavery feeling in this city, and more particularly amongst the members of the religious community to which I belong.  On one occasion an esteemed individual kindly invited a number of “Friends” to meet me at his house, including some who object to uniting in anti-slavery effort with those of other denominations.  I was introduced by the reading of a certificate of membership from the monthly meeting to which I belong, and also a document from a number of “Friends” in England, well known to those in America, commending me, and the cause in which I was engaged, to their kind and favorable consideration.

I then briefly related the leading objects of my visit to America, and that it was my anxious wish the members of my own religious society in this land, could see it their place to take the same active and prominent part in the anti-slavery cause, as their brethren in England had done, especially as the principles on which the British and Foreign and the American and Foreign Societies were founded, were entirely in accordance with the views of the Society of Friends.  Those who spoke in reply mostly vindicated the course pursued in the United States.  From this interview, as well as from others of a more private nature, with leading “Friends,” I came to the conclusion, that a number of these would continue, by their influence and advice, to oppose their fellow members joining anti-slavery societies, though it is not probable that any disciplinary proceedings would be taken against such who might act in opposition to this counsel, so long as the recognized principles of the Society were not compromised.  On this, to me, painfully interesting subject, I could dwell at length, but I will simply remark that, while it is evident that anti-slavery feeling is at too low an ebb among “Friends” here, yet doubtless, many of those who thus excuse themselves from active and effective service in the cause, still deeply sympathize with their oppressed fellow-men, and are not quite at ease in view of the apathy and inaction of the body to which they belong.

On the 28th we arrived at Baltimore; during a stay of two or three days, we found several persons who were friendly to our cause.  There are computed to be five thousand slaves in this city, but of course slavery does not obtrude itself on the casual observer.  Here, as in other countries, he who would see it as it is, must view it on the plantations.