Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1859-03-30 00:00:00

he dare say the Industrial Schools also had a little trouble
with him.
Mr. Turner said, he opposed the reccommendation at the
Industrial Schools Committee on account of Mr. Holmes's
temper.
Mr. Cook said, if the Vestry would carry the recommen-
dation, it would very much strengthen the hands of the
schools' committee, and enable them to make it one of the
finest institutions in the kingdom.
Mr. Luff said, he had been told that Mr. Wilson had
been successfully transferred from the Industrial Schools,
and now that they were also tired of Mr. Holmes, they
wanted to transfer Mr. Holmcs also.
Mr. Jones replied and said that, although Mr. Holmes
had failed at the schools, it was only a comparative failure ;
and with reference to Mr. Holmes's temper, it did not
hinder him from performing his duties efficiently at the
workhouse.
The Chairman said, he had great difficulty in giving an
opinion on this question, the discussion of which had beenvery
painful to him. It was not necessary to defend Mr. Holmes
from the almost contemptuous and miserable representations
which Mr. Denton had given with respect to him. He
could not admit that this had been a failure in consequence
of Mr Holmes's unmixed want of discretion. He thought
the failure was perpetrated by the board in the first instance,
in proposing a scheme which was likely to act well. They
did not imagine that it would have been such a complete
frilure as it had been, or, of course, they would not have
proposed it. But it had singularly failed ; not so much
from the conduct of those who had to manage it, as it
would require more discretion than any man was capable
of exercising. He was prepared to admit that Mr.
Holmes had not the requisite discretion, nor did he
think that he (the chairman) would have the discretion
required. He believed that if Mr. Holmes was restored
there, he would conduct himself with the same propriety
and the same discretion, and with the same satisfaction as for-
merly. He had no objection to the transfer except a finan-
cial one. . .

The amendment was put, and carried by a majority of
two. The members voting for were—Messrs. Cropper,
Broome, Denton, Hand, Luff, Peck, Turner, Whitby, and
Williams. Against : Messrs. Cafferata, Jackson, Cook,
Jones, Critchley, and Whitty.
Mr. Cafferata moved, as an amendment, that the question
be referred to a sub-committee, to consider the propriety of
the transfer, and report to the vestry.
The amendment was put and lost, and this concluded the
business.

IS ENGLAND RESPONSIBLE FOR SLAVERY
IN AMERICA ?
TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN TIMES.
Sir,—To the question of an Englishman in the
NORTHERN TIMES of 23rd inst., "Is England res-
ponsible for Slavery in America ? " I respectfully
beg leave through your kind indulgence to answer—
No. _

England is no more responsible than God was for
Noah's drunken imprecations on Canaan, when his
father lay helplessly exposed under the influence of
wine, which by the way I would remind those cham-
pions for enslaving the negro-race, that Canaan's
case as a justification for enslaving the African has
become threadbare, and is therefore no argument.
England is no more responsible than God was for
His friend Abraham's conduct with his maid servant
Hagar ; if it proved- anything, it was an
evidence of the wickedness of the system then
in its infancy. No more responsible than God
was for Lot's incest with his two daughters,
notwithstanding their miraculous escape from
Sodom and Gomorrah. No more responsible
than God was for David's conduct in the matter of
thiah and Bathsheba. No more responsible than
God was for Solomon's vile system of polygamy and
coneubinage. Under the old dispensation God suf-
fered, as he does now, those evils to exist, viz :
Idolatry, human bondage, polygamy, concubinagei
and human sacrifices ; but always denounced these
monstrous sins with prophetic judgment, all of which
were scripturally fulfilled—" In those days God
winked at your sins, because of the hardness of your
hearts ;" but under this new dispensation, " God now
commands all men everywhere to repent."
ELIAL,-,-,(1 is no more responsible than she is for
the disgusting nun..— .nnw practised
among savage heathens in different parts of the
world, because forsooth, in the days of their heath-
enism, 1,900 years ago, the ancient Britons painted
their bodies, lived in caves, enslaved each other, and
offered human sacrifices. No more responsible
than the Reformed Protestant Religion is
for the adulterous reign of King Henry VIII.,
who to a certain extent (though not always ap-
proveable) promoted the overthrow of the temporal
and spiritual authority of the Pope of Rome,
over the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland.
England is no more responsible for negro slavery
in America, than Spain, Portugal, France, Holland,
Denmark, and all civilised Europe ; all were at that
time particeps criminas, all equally guilty. Negro
Slavery was the illegitimate offspring of Romish
theology. In order to alleviate the condition of the
aborigines in the New World, who would not
consent to be made slaves, but rose upon their
Spanish invaders and successfully secured their
liberty. Father Peter, a Roman Catholic Jesuit,
found a substitute within the lids of the bible,
namely,,----" Cursed be Canaan, &c." Las Casas also
advocated this inhuman, unchristian doctrine.
Hence the introduction of African slavery.
The first class of labourers introduced into the
colony of Virginia were white convicts, from the
mother country, composed principally of the deni-
zens of Newgate, as also criminals from all parts of
the United Kingdom. In 1620, a Dutch ship landed
20 Africans at James's River. Soon after, Sir John
Hawkins landed a cargo of Africans at the same
place.
England is no more responsible than France, who
first planted negro slavery in Louisiana, and subse-
quently purchased by President Jefferson for
$15,000,000—n0 more responsible than Spain, who
also established negro slavery in Florida, afterwards
purchased by the United States government for
£5,000,000.
But why should England alone be singled out,
arraigned, and put on trial before the whole world,
and adjudged guilty for the sin of slavery, as it
now exists in America ? In common law,
the receiver is as bad as the thief. " Let
him that stealeth, steal no more." Does
England fit out ships like the Americans are
now doing, in open defiance of existing treaties, to
re-open the abominable African slave trade ? On
the contrary ; she is now doing all she can to break
up the infernal system. There was not only repen-
tance made and received, but the thief on the cross
was promised by the Redeemer that he should that
same day be with him in Paradise, if scripture be
be true, and, who will dare to doubt it ? How much
more justified does England stand before high
heaven, the world's jury, and her accusers, than the
thief on the cross ?
Two hundred and thirty-nine years ago, England
joined hands with Christian pirates and robbed
Africa of more than 200,000,000 of her children.
Less than one hundred years ago—as a nation that
had grevifously sinned Lefore God and the world's
humanity—she humbled herself as it were in
sackcloth and in ashes, and abolished the
infamous. African slave trade twenty-five
years ago. In order to make her "repen-
tance not to be repented of " doubly sure,
England, at a sacrifice of £20,000, sets another
example worthy to be imitated by America, by
abolishing chattel slavery throughout all her West
and East India possessions.. Other nations have
nobly followed her example. We have only now
the mortification of seeing negro slavery with all its
enormities upheld by Spain and the United States.
We deny that England is responsible for negro
slavery- in America. In 1776, when the thirteen
colonies separated from the mother country, why
did they not abolish slavery, as forced upon them by
the British authority ?• On the contrary, did they
not claim indemnification for 30,000 slaves escaped
to British territory during the wars of 1776 and
1812. •

It is too late at this stage of the worlds history
in this age of progressive humanity and civilization
—for Americans, and their apologist an Englishman,
to come before this world's court to file in their plea
to a general issue, or a plea of justification for the
existence of American slavery. England has washed
her hands, and brought forth fruits, meet for repent-
ance, and she now stands before all Christendom,
pre-eminently great, glorious, and free, as the
invincible uncompromising, firm, and devoted cham-
pion of universal freedom.—l am, sir, yours, &c.,
YoVNQ AFRICA.

Liverpool, 26th March, 1859,