The national era. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1847-1860, 1857-01-01
NO. 522.

the poor classes, show that at least there is
Willingness, and desire, too, to have the var-
GUS enormities brought to light? And what is
the inevitable inference in the opposite case /?
nd then, how is it with the " Tit for the Tat?"
but, as the case is there, is it quite made out
Roland for the Oliver?" TO us it does not
seem so clear, and we do not see but the retort
might be made-We are willing to know our
true condition, and you are not; and to know is
the first step towards being made to feel and to
REFORM We hope the authoress will clear up
this point in the preface of her next edition
1t certainly deserves attention. She ought also
to pay the more heed to it, as she has an ad-
vantage IN awaiting herself of the official docu-
lnents OF able committees, which Mrs. Stowe
could not have for the very proposal to appoint
such committee in our slaveholding States,
with reference to redress of wrongs and cor
rection of abuses, would have been met with
the loudest cutlery, as a most outrageous case
OF interference with vested right.
Aside from its subject, we presume the au-
thoress would not presume to claim any equal.
ity of merit of her tale with that of Mrs. Stoves.
1t never rises above mediocrity, and, indeed,
hardly to that, literary production. There
IL nothing Ike Mrs. Stoves descriptive power,
there is scarcely any regular, meteorological
plan. Fictitious and real personages are inter
mingled in strange sort of confusion. The
object seems to have been, by embracing a wide
range, going back as far into history as the
time OF Cromwell, travelling abroad, voyaging
on the ocean, to gather in everything that might
set forth the social evils of Great Britain. The
main interest is made to centre around a sweep
boy, son of Lord Hardheart, stolen from his
father at three years of age, and the oppression
to which he is subjected. And, as drawn, it is
oppression-deep and damning oppression. But
does not the authoress see that if the conduct
depicted in his case is wrong and outrage, it
can be no less SO, inflicted on colored boy !?
If whipping, nakedness, the loss of limbs, or
various suferings, endured from cruel treat
ment is misery and calls loudly for redress s
the case Of chimney-sweep, as we admit, does
not the same treatment demand EXPOSURE
q'Hs IL 1901 o. .n,s RaPdBncF Did she
80 fight in laying open the foul injustice there,
! and does citizen Of the United States then
trespass upon right or decorum in doing the
same in this country, where is guaranteed to
every such one, by the Constitution of his cqun'
try. freedom of speech and of the pressH We
regard, then, the republication of this book
coming las it is said) from lady of New Or
leans as al admission that the full development
of the evils of Slavery by Mrs. Stowe, or any one
else, is fair and legitimate object for the EN-
ployment of such talents as God has blessed
any one with; and, with such an example, we
trust no more complaint will be made OF OIL
cious intermeddling by our Southern friends
There is one paragraph among others on page
l94 which we feel disposed to quote. We sup
pose it was written in 1854, and is reprinted as
published in Great Britain, but it sounds a lit
tie queer now, and we somewhat wonder that
if the book were at all revised, 1t stands as II
does. After abiding to the practice OF sitting
or postponing unpleasant measures IN the Brlt
ish House of Commons, the authoress goes on
"Not so in Congress there, whether IN me
Saoal 60 the speaker, and his measure at least
Htened to. Again we are beginning to believe
thasshe merits of our institution are being bet
ter understood and less feared, and its interests
promotet by free discussion. -
"What eTIsrs and grievances How remain in
the system be heard as i0eU IN the Halls ~
Congress as in Massachusetts House pt
Representatives. Our SUMMERS and our Sew
ards, and our Giddings. and our Chases, of the
North are heard with the same patience and
aspect claimed by our Buffers Soules, Der
mems, or Stephens, of the South nor does
the institution of Slavery, as it now exists
lose any OF its strength by tie respect shotcn to
free discussion"
The italics, capitals, and exclamation point
are ours. But where could the authoress have
= been for some months year past? Whist
do our readers say to such book?
: There is vet another very queer thing about
= 1T. Our cory, perhaps, is defective one, or
what does it mean In the Table of Contents
there are two paragraphs on Subjects referring.
60 various members OF Parliament, &c as pre-.
ceding Chapte LIST, and which must have occu.
pied several PAGES, not one line of which ap.
pears in the book. Were they cancelled in the
american copy, and the contents left If so
Il betrays not little carelessness of preparation
: somewhere. We 10 not know how to account
4 Tor il.
Labelled on the outside, we find likewise the
words, :" A Reply to Dred' How is it reply
60 bred ? There Is not the slightest mention
of bred in it; and SO far from being anything
like an answer to it, OF q refutation of that book
it is confirmation of the aim it has in view ;
for surely, if such are the abuses of fellow-crea-
lures, and such the effect on the heart of man,
In spite of existing laws then unlimited power,
protected by law, aad where there is nothing to
interfere in its exercise, must be still worse, and
lust such as bred assumes to exist and exhibits
in its actings out. The look processes to be
! written by lady, but portions Of it-as, for
ample, the anatomical terms used in one
k6r>ion-seem to indicate it could hardly have
! Aad such origin.