that the manner in which Friends of this country, of a former generation, labored for the liberation of the slave, was not under the guidance of the Spirit of truth.

“This is now the course pursued by Friends generally in England.  That there may be no misapprehension as to the conduct of Friends, with regard to this subject, in Great Britain, I may mention, that I am the bearer of a document expressive of unity with my visit, signed by William Allen, Josiah Forster, William Forster, George Stacey, Samuel Fox, George W. Alexander, and Robert Forster, who declare themselves fellow members with myself of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Committee.  This committee is composed of persons of various religious denominations, amongst whom it will be seen are many of the prominent members of our meeting for sufferings.  Upon the list of delegates to the late Anti-Slavery Convention, in London, are the names of nearly one hundred well known Friends, including those of four who are, or have been clerks of the yearly meeting; and the present clerk of that meeting, my esteemed friend, George Stacey, took an active part, and rendered essential service in the Convention.  The meeting house in Gracechurch Street was freely granted by Friends in London, who have charge of it, for the use of the Convention, and the concluding sittings of that body were held in it.

“In fact, Friends generally in England think it their duty to render every aid in their power to the anti-slavery cause, whether in their collective capacity, or individually uniting with their fellow-citizens, when they can do so without any compromise of our religious principles and testimonies.  I speak more explicitly on this point, because I have ascertained with much concern, that there is an influential portion of the Society, including, I have no doubt, some sincere abolitionists, who have been so fearful that the testimonies of the Society might suffer by any union with others, that they have not only avoided such a co-operation themselves, but have dissuaded those of their brethren, who have believed it incumbent upon them to act otherwise; and in one ‘Yearly Meeting,’ at least, I have too much reason to fear they have tacitly, if not actively sanctioned the omission of the names of Friends on meeting appointments,—­however consistent in their conduct, and concerned for the welfare of the society—­simply because they have felt it their duty to act with persons of other denominations in promoting the abolition of slavery; thus, in appearance at least, throwing the whole weight and influence of the society, in its collective capacity, against a movement, which, although doubtless partaking of the imperfections attendant upon all human instrumentality, has already aroused the whole country to a sense of the wrongs of the slave, and secured to the nominally free colored citizens, in many of the States, rights of which they have been so long and so unjustly deprived.