Great Britain. Its history for the last two centuries shows it to be, in a worldly sense of the terms the wisest and wickedest government that has hitherto existed on the globe. For its own selfish purposes, it with great industry for a series of years worked steadily to effect the destruction, or at least the crippling of the United States.

It was clear to my mind that we had a perfect right to interrupt her movement against us, if necessary, by going to war with her. In such an event, her agents and allies, the Abolitionists, would have taken sides with her, and thus by arraying the national feelings of the country against them, they would have been rendered as powerless for mischief as was the old Federal party by its opposition to the war of 1812.

Even if no war should follow from the movements that I favored, as least the public attention would have been directed to foreign questions rather than to a domestic. controversy. The administration of President Pierce, however, could not be induced to look in that direction.

When the slaughter of some of our citizens occurred at Panama, I made a most earnest appeal to him personally, and also to Mr. Marcy, the Secretary of State, to induce them to take steps to occupy the isthmus of Panama, for damages, and pay the government of Grenada a pecuniary consideration by way of boot, for it. This matter was subsequently referred to in the House in my speech of May 5th, 1858. Also, when the case of the Black Warrior occurred, I, in connection with the Hon. John Perkins, of Louisiana, made an effort to induce the government to take decided action, but to no purpose.

With respect to this last transaction, as a different impression was at that time sought to be made, it is due to the truth that I should explain what actually did take place in that connection. I do this the more willingly because Judge Perkins and Mr. Davis are both living, and if they think proper can add their recollections to mine. It is perhaps also right that I should do so, because I have in conversation several times spoken of the transaction. Soon after the message of the President was read, Judge Perkins and I had a conversation on the subject. We were both members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and concurred in our feelings with reference to the matter of the message. At his request, after the adjournment of the House I repaired to his lodging, then near the corner of Fourteenth street and Pennsylvania avenue. We jointly prepared resolutions in response to the calls in the mes sage, for means to defend the honor and interests of the country. Judge Perkins kept all the papers, and I can only only speak from memory as to their precise terms. In substance we proposed to authorize the President to make use of the army and navy, to accept the service of fifty thousand volunteers, and make an appropriation of ten millions in money. I may not remember the numbers precisely, though I cannot be mistaken as to the substance of the proposition. After the resolutions had been fully written out, Mr. Perkins being, as well as myself, well pleased with them, suggested that before we had them proposed in the committee they should be com municated to the administration. I earnestly objected to this, because I apprehended that the administration, not being really in earnest, would endeavor to strangle the proposition. Though I insisted that we ought to take the message as conclusive of the President's wishes, yet Mr. Perkins said he did not feel willing to press them through the committee, without first submitting them to the President, &c.

He expressed the greatest confidence that all would be right, and said that by eleven o'clock in the morning he would be in the committee room prepared to press

the resolutions. The committee met at ten o'clock, and remained in session till eleven o'clock without his appearing. I kept them occupied with some little matters till twelve o'clock, hoping that he might come, but in vain. When the House met I sought him without finding him in his seat. It was not until nearly two o'clock that he appeared. On my going to him and asking why he had failed to come to the committee, he said: "Why, that matter fell on them up there (referring to the White House) like a coup d'etat." "What do you mean ?" I enquired. He answered, "They said nothing would be more embarrassing to them than such a movement in Congress, and entreated me not to urge it." Subsequently he told me that the matter was discussed for two or three hours, Messrs. Pierce, Marcy and Davis being all present,

Some other things occurred in this connection which at this time I do not think it necessary to state, without the permission of Judge Perkins. They, however, in no wise tend to reflect on him, but, on the contrary his action was in all respects praiseworthy.

I was of opinion at that time that a war with Spain, England, and even France, (though I did not believe that she could be gotten into it) would not cost us a tenth of the men and money that a civil war would do.

In connection with the foreign affairs of the country I refer to an incident which led, perhaps, to a publication subsequently made. Crampton, the British minister, had been detected in what was supposed to be a violation of our neutral position in the Crimean war. While his case was the subject of controversy, I saw President Pierce, and suggested that as England was sensitive and very averse to his dismissal, it would be politic to waive the matter, provided we could, in exchange for so doing, obtain a substantial concession as to Central America. He and Mr. Marcy, either from anger, or, as I then thought, to make political capital for the next Presidential race, insisted on Crampton's dismissal. On the evening after this occurred, I met at a party both the Count de Sartiges, the French minister, and Baron Stoekl, the Russian. I saw at a glance on meeting them that the French minister was exceedingly disturbed and very much depressed, while the Russian embassador was elated and jubilant. These circumstances were too significant to fail to make an impression. On the next morning I called at the war office and said to Mr. Davis, the Secretary, that in saying what I was about to do, I wished him to understand that I did not myself believe any serious difficulty would result from the dismissal of Crampton, but that two persons who ought to be better posted on that subject than I could be expected to be, evidently thought differently, or at least seemed to believe that something might grow out of the transaction. I then stated to Mr. Davis what I had observed, and asked him in the event of war with Great Britain what would be our means of defense in California. I stated that we could easily march men across the continent, but that we could not transport heavy ordnance, and asked him if there were a sufficiency of heavy guns at San Francisco to resist an attack from the sea. He at once concurred in the view that it was important to enquire, and he immediately sent for Colonel Craig, the Chief of Ordnance. When he came in it was ascertained that the means of defense were insufficient, and he directed that a quan tity of heavy ordnance, with the necessary stores, should forthwith be sent by sea to San Francisco.

[It became more and more evident that the next presidential contest, as far at least as the Northern States were concerned, was to be made to turn upon the slavery issue. To defeat such a movement it seemed necessary that the Conservative feeling of the country should be strengthened as much as possible, and united on a single candidate. As our opponents would show a solid front against us, it was our plain duty likewise to unite for the common defence. As too, our adversaries derived a large part of their strength from their alliance with the British Abolitionists, and such powerful aid as the English press daily gave them, it seemed of the utmost importance that this conbination should be exposed and thereby its influences weakened as much as possible. With that purpose, I prepared and published a paper, directed to my own constituents, but which was intended for general circulation, and which in fact was used to some extent in other States. In it a contrast was drawn between the action of Great Britain in its dependencies, and the condition to which it reduced its subjects, especially in India, and that of the laborers in the Southern States of our Union, and some points were made with a view of arraying the feelings of our countrymen against the British movement and policy.

It seemed that by exposing the injustice of the Abolitionists towards us, and at the same time rendering their great ally odious to our people, an union of all the conservative elements of the country might be effected. With this purpose, the address which follows was published.]

ADDRESS

TO THE FREEMEN OF THE EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE POLITICAL CONDITION AND PROSPECTS OF THE COUNTRY.

FELLOW-CITIZENS: Many letters have, during the present session of Congress, been received by me containing inquiries in relation to the present political condition of the country and its future prospects. Not only in my own district, but elsewhere throughout the South, there is doubt and anxiety in the public mind. In my judgment, there are good grounds for apprehension; and I adopt this as the most appropriate mode of communicating my views to you, and shall speak with that frankness that I am accustomed to use when discussing political topics in your presence.

That the ultimate destiny of our present political system will be determined by events soon to occur, is most probable. If the perils which threaten it are properly understood by the people, they will be averted, and we may well hope for a long career of prosperity under our existing form of government. The danger which now menaces the existence of the Federal Union arises from feelings of hostility entertained in the North towards the Southern section, and especially the institution of negro slavery as it exists among us. To indicate fully the nature of the evil which impends, it may be necessary to review some points that have already been brought to your notice by

myself and others in former discussions. So great is the interest involved, however, in the question, that you will, I know, fellow-citizens, pardon some recurrence to familiar topics.

When the Constitution of the United States was originally adopted, twelve of the States were slave-holding, one of the old thirteen only having abolished the institution. In forming the Constitution, therefore, no power was given to the general government to interfere wit slavery in the way of abolishing it, or even restricting it to any particular territory or limits, but each State retained its former right to act for itself with reference to the subject. The only powers given the Federal government were plainly bestowed on it for the protection and defence of the institution in such of the States as desired to retain it It is provided that slaves should be represented in Congress, so as to increase the weight of the slave-holding States; secondly, that all such as might run away should be restored to their owners; and, thirdly, that for the period of twenty years Congress should not prevent the importation of such additional slaves as the States might desire to add to their existing numbers. It was thus manifest that, while ample pc wer was given the government to defend slavery as long as any one State might desire to retain it, there was allowed to it not the shadow of authority to abolish, or even to assail, the institution.

For thirty years after its adoption the provisions of the Constitution were maintained, and under their operation some of the Northern States having in the meantime sold most of their slaves to the Southern people, to whom such property was worth more than it could be in the North, abolished the system, while several new States, both free and slaveholding, had been admitted into the Union. The Federal gov ernment, in the meantime had properly abstained from all interference with the subject. In the year 1820, the State of Missouri offered herself for admission into the Union, with a Constitution recognizing slavery. The application met with violent opposition from the North. This was owing to the course of certain leaders of the old Federal party. In such of the Northern States as had abolished slavery there was a feeling against it. As the difference between white men and negroes had not then been much noticed or understood, it was not difficult to enlist the sympathies of the people there in favor of the slaves of the South; and the leaders, therefore, of a party that had been overthrown and rendered odious, by inflammatory appeals in favor of universal liberty, and denunciation of the slave power of the South, aroused a strong feeling throughout the entire North, so that a body of representatives were returned from that section hostile to the application of the new State, though her Constitution was, in respect to slavery, similar to those of a majority of the old States. After an exciting struggle, an act was passed proposing to allow Missouri to come into the Union, but declaring in one of its clauses that in all that portion of the Louisiana Territory that lay north of the parallel of 36° 30' slavery should never exist.

By the old French and Spanish laws, which had been in operation over the entire territory, slavery legally existed in every part of it, and

this was in law, if not in fact, an act of abolition. Southern. men, however, from an extreme anxiety to procure the admission of the new State, unwisely and weakly consented to support the measure, and were willing to purchase for Missouri what she could claim as a right under the Constitution. The restriction was supposed by Southern men, however, to have entitled her to come into the Union; but at the succeeding session of Congress, when she applied with her republican Constitution, the body of the Northern representatives still resisted and rejected her, in accordance with the instructions of most of the Northern States. Hence it became necessary for new concessions to be made, and an additional price paid to the North; and Mr. Clay came forward with his compromise, requiring Missouri to do certain other humiliating things before she could get into the Union. In this way, with the aid of six or seven Northern votes only, she was accepted, in the midst of a general storm of opposition from the North. Since the prohibition of slavery north of 36° 30' was originally offered as a consideration for her admission, and as such was not accepted by the the free States, but a new price required, it would have been right for the South to have likewise repudiated the act of prohibition. Nevertheless, impelled by a strong desire to have peace and harmony, the exclusion was acquiesced in by her, while the North complained and denounced the act. The anti-slavery feeling gradually subsided there, and the country remained quiet until a new influence was brought to bear on it.

Great Britain had acquired, by the force of her arms and skill in diplomacy, immense possessions in Asia. Her East Indian provinces alone contained more than one hundred millions of people, held in a state of most abject slavery, and oppressed by much greater hardships than the negroes of any part of the United States.

To make this appear and because British writers are constantly denouncing the slaveholders of the South for their immorality, barbarity, and cruelty-and because the Abolitionists in this country are in the daily habit of praising everything in England, and holding up her conduct for us to imitate-it will not be amiss for me to present some facts. Eighteen months since the British Parliament was forced, by the pressure of public opinion, to send out to India a commission to inquire into the manner in which the people were treated there. That commission, after examining hundreds of witnesses, has recently made its report; and I find the substance of it given in the January number of the Edinburgh Review for the present year. It must be borne in mind, that in that country the government owns the land and compels the people to work it, exacting as much as one-half, and, it is said, even two-thirds, of the entire product of the farms. It is difficultalmost impossible, indeed-to collect such enormous rents. As a means, however, of exacting it, torture is habitually applied. I present a few extracts from the article of this periodical--a publication as reliable as any in Great Britain:

"The tortures which the commissioners find to have been employed are of various kinds and of different degrees of severity. Some of them are so light