Slavery, The Evangelical Alliance, and The Free Church: An Address Delivered in Glasgow, Scotland, September 30, 1846
SLAVERY, THE EVANGELICAL ALLIANCE, AND THE FREE CHURCH: AN ADDRESS DELIVERED IN GLASGOW, SCOTLAND, ON 30 SEPTEMBER 1846
Glasgow Argus, 5 October 1846. Other texts in Glasgow Argus, 15 October 1846; Scrapbooks collected by George Thompson and Frederick W. Chesson, 6 : 131-43, DLC.
The Glasgow Emancipation Society held a public meeting on 30 September 1846 at the city hall, where Douglass and Garrison continued their crusade against the Evangelical Alliance and the Free Church of Scotland. Several "respectable citizens" joined them on the platform and Garrison's host Andrew Paton chaired the meeting. Whether the meeting was "numerously attended," as the Glasgow Argus of 5 October noted, or "poorly attended," as the Glasgow Citizen of 3 October reported, Garrison judged that the assembly was "of, the right stamp" and was conducted "under cheering circumstances." Paton lauded Garrison's antislavery efforts and established that Garrison was the evening's major attraction: "Our meeting this evening is chiefly for the purpose of welcoming our friend William Lloyd Garrison, to this city, on the occasion of his present visit to this country." William Smeal, an officer of the Glasgow Emancipation Society and Garrison's long-time friend, read depositions from American abolitionists, including a testimonial from free blacks in Boston that designated Garrison their representative. Responding to condemnatory articles in the Glasgow Scottish Guardian and the Dundee Northern Warder which labelled Garrison, Douglass, and Thompson "heretics," "infidels," and "atheists," Garrison charged that public acceptance of the actions of the Evangelical Alliance and the Free Church of Scotland indicated that Britain's antislavery commitment had waned. Douglass then recounted the setbacks to the antislavery cause since his last visit to Glasgow and brought the meeting to a close. Glasgow Citizen, 3 October 1846; Glasgow Examiner, 3 October 1846; Glasgow Saturday Post and Paisley and Renfrewshire Reformer, 3 October 1846; London Nonconformist, 7 October 1846; Garrison to Henry C. Wright, 21 September 1846, Garrison to Lib., 3 October 1846, in Merrill and Ruchames, Garrison Letters, 3 : 423 - 25, 434.
Mr . Frederick Douglass, w h o was received with applause, said, I feel very glad to be in Glasgow, especially to have an opportunity of speaking to you on the subject of American slavery. It seems that the fight for the abolition of slavery in America, like the battle for emancipation in the West Indies, is to be fought upon British soil. Both the friends of slavery and its enemies have appeared in this land, and the community
are fast taking sides with the one and with the other party of deputationists from the United States.
The deputation from the anti-slavery party is small; the deputation from the pro-slavery party is large—very large. The one and the other met not long since in the city of London. The one calling itself the Evangelical Alliance, and the other calling themselves the reviewers of the Evangelical Alliance.1Douglass refers to the public meeting called by the Anti-Slavery League in Exeter Hall on 14 September 1846 to "review the proceedings of the Evangelical Alliance in relation to Slavery and Slave-holders." London Inquirer, 19 September 1846. (Cheers). There are but two parties in the United States on this question, neither can there be long more than two in this country in reference to it. There are but two parties in the United States, I repeat, the slaveholders and the anti-slaveholders—the friends of the slave and the enemies of the slave. We are two—there is no middle ground. There is no serving anti-slavery a little and pro-slavery a little. There is no worshipping at the shrine of slavery and at the shrine of liberty at the same time. There is a strong line of demarcation drawn between the abolitionists in the United States and the anti-abolitionists—that line is becoming more and more distinct in this country, and the more distinct it becomes the better. The sooner we learn who are the friends of freedom, and who are not, the better for the cause of emancipation in this country. (Cheers.)
Not six years ago there were many in this city who did not hesitate to come forward and avow themselves the uncompromising advocates of emancipation, who were called Rev. Doctors of Divinity, and where are they now? They are among the missing. They have ceased to work with
us; they have ceased to strike hands with the abolitionists. This platform was once the arena of the eloquence of such persons as Dr. King,2The Reverend David King, LL.D. (1808-83), was minister of Greyfriar's (Burgher) United Presbyterian Church in Glasgow from 1833 to 1862. An early member of the Glasgow Emancipation Society, King unsuccessfully fought to keep the Glasgow Society out of the Garrisonian camp. In 1840 two vice-presidents of the Glasgow Society, Hugh Heugh and Ralph Wardlaw, resigned to protest the pro-Garrisonian tone of the group's 1840 Annual Report. King persuaded Heugh and Wardlaw to return provided the Society would endorse a set of operating principles to be enunciated by King. On 13 March 1841 the Society adopted King's resolutions to remain silent on the "Woman Question," to express no preference for either "old" or "new" organization in the United States, and to avoid identification with either body's publications or agents. One month later a coalition of Garrisonians and Chartists gained control of the Society's governing committee. By the end of July, King and other conservative members had resigned, leaving the Glasgow Emancipation Society a bastion of Garrisonian influence. This major split in Glasgow abolitionism probably accounted for the absence of numerous "Doctors of Divinity" from Douglass's audience. Rice, "Scottish Factor," 218 - 33; [J. A. Collins?] to William Lloyd Garrison, 2 May 1841, in Taylor, British and American Abolitionists, 150; Irving, Book of Scotsmen, 256; Small, United Presbyterian Church, 1 : 475, 555, 590; 2 : 25 - 26; DNB, 11 : 126-27. Dr. Wardlaw,3Ralph Wardlaw. Dr. Robson,4 John Robson, Scottish teacher and clergyman, was ordained as first minister of Lasswade Secession Church in October 1832. On 2 June 1840 he became second minister of the Wellington Street Church in Glasgow where he remained for the rest of his career. He received the Doctor of Divinity degree from the University of Glasgow in 1844. There is no indication that Robson was ever openly identified with the antislavery movement. Small, United Presbyterian Church, 1 : 178, 185, 591, 2 : 45; Rev. W. MacKelvie, ed., Annals and Statistics of the United Presbyterian Church (Edinburgh, 1873), 301 - 02. and other eminent Doctors of Divinity in Glasgow. Where are they this evening? One of the slaves for whom they appeared to plead stands here this evening to ask after them. (Great applause.)
Well do I remember how my heart throbbed with gratitude to those men when I read their speeches on the subject of emancipation. I remember how my heart was thrilled when I read the speeches of Dr. Wardlaw and those of George Thompson in relation to this subject. But where are they to-night? Where is Dr. King, Dr. Wardlaw, and Dr. Robson? Have the slaves in the United States given these gentlemen any offence? Have the slaves behaved in any manner to justify them in giving up the cause of abolition, and abandoning them to their tyrant masters? (Hear, hear.) I think not; but if they have, these gentlemen should tell us what they have done to lead them to pass them by on the otherside. (Cheers.)
My object in rising, however, at this period is to say a few words about the Evangelical Alliance. We have had some meetings in this country since I had the pleasure of addressing a Glasgow audience. A number of things have transpired tending to give the question a different complexion to that which it wore when I was here before. Since I was here, the Free Church General Assembly was held at Canonmills. Since I was here, the Evangelical Alliance has held its sittings. Since I was here, the World's Temperance Convention has met in London. Since I was here, the United Secession Synod has declared that it would countenance no Christian union with slaveholders. (Cheers.) Since I was here, the Relief Synod has declared in favour of non-Christian fellowship with man-stealers. (Applause.) Since I was here, the Irish Presbyterian Assembly has denounced slaveholding as man-stealing.5On 11 July 1846 the General Assembly of the Irish Presbyterian Church addressed a letter to American Presbyterians on the subject of slavery. Approved by antislavery and Free Church sympathizers, the letter condemned "the crime of man-stealing" as well as abolitionist "imprudence," and rebuked American Presbyterians for their "feeble reprehension" of slavery's "admitted enormities" but stopped short of threatening to withhold communion from Americans. Riach, "Campaign Against American Slavery," 304 - 07; Acknowledged Slander" Again! Free Church Assembly and Slavery Contrasted with the Irish Assembly and Slavery . . . (Glasgow, 1846), 8 - 11. All these and
other circumstances have transpired, tending to give a different complexion to this question to what it presented when I was here some months ago. But one of the principal things which has taken place was the holding of the Evangelical Alliance.
The Evangelical Alliance is a high sounding title. Let us trace the history of the connection of the slavery question with this distinguished body. A preliminary meeting of this Alliance was held in the town of Birmingham, and before that meeting came the question of American slavery, and the question as to how the Alliance should regard American slaveholders, or slaveholders, no matter from whence they came. The question, I am told, was sharply debated, and the Rev. Dr. Candlish brought forward a resolution embodying the proposition, that slaveholders be not invited to attend the Alliance. This resolution was agreed to, and was soon published in this country and in the United States. Slaveholders and non-slaveholders saw it. The former were well acquainted with the fact, that they were likely to be placed under the ban of exclusion if they attended the Alliance. It was not that slaveholders be excluded from that Alliance, but that they be not invited to that Alliance.
With this resolution looking them in the face, some seventy ministers left the United States for the purpose of attending the Evangelical Alliance, then to meet in London on the 18th of August last. They came a united body. There are no two parties in America among the friends of slavery. They came to London, and the Evangelical Alliance was summoned together. They met together in convention, and one of the first acts of that Alliance was to shut out the light—they excluded reporters, which was to say, in effect, "We are about to do an act—we are about to have such deliberations—such devil's work is to be done as it will not be safe for the world to see. We will exclude all reporters; if we have deeds of diabolism among us, we will at least shut out the eyes of the world." What would have been thought of a body of Roman Catholics doing this? It would have been said that it was perfectly in keeping with the practices of that body; but I will not repeat what the people say about the Evangelical Alliance for doing the same thing. Did
they look as if they desired to be inspected of men? Why, Christians, in the language of our blessed Saviour, are represented as cities set on a hill; but the very first thing the members of the Evangelical Alliance did, was to put themselves under a bushel, to extinguish from them the light of investigation. (Cheers.) But although the discussions could not be had in full, there were some in the camp who reported the meetings of the Alliance.
During these sittings there was a great outpouring of love: the American brethren loved the British brethren, and the British brethren loved the American brethren. (Cheers and laughter.) Never was there such demonstration of Christian regard, of Christian love, and of Christian sympathy. In the midst of all this the question arose, What shall be our basis? On what terms shall individuals be admitted into the branches of our Alliance?
They agreed to a certain form of creed; but there was a Dr. Hinton among them, a man tinctured a little with the spirit of anti-slavery. He knew that there were certain men in the United States who held precisely the same views of the basis recommended, and who made as high pretensions to evangelical faith as the Alliance itself, but he knew these men were slaveholders, and he desired to add to the basis a clause which would prevent slaveholders from being admitted into the Alliance. Greater agitation could not have been produced by the throwing of a bombshell into the midst of the Alliance itself than the raising of this question. It produced the greatest possible excitement. Those brethren who loved so much, and who had come, many of them, 3000 miles to embrace each other, were in arms in an instant. The bond of their unity had burst assunder. Angry discussions arose: and the evangelical man-stealers would not unite with the others if slaveholders were excluded from that Alliance. Dr. Patton6 This is a reference to the Reverend William Patton of New York who spoke on 27 August in opposition to John H. Hinton's motion to ban slaveholders from Alliance membership. Stressing the broad, ecumenical nature of the initial summons to the London conference, Patton reminded delegates that the Americans had not crossed the Atlantic "for the purpose of witnessing the birth of a British child, or to stand American Godfather to the child that should be born." Recalling that some American clergymen had predicted that their "British Brethren would make the Alliance an Anti-Slavery Association," Patton assured the meeting that he had "repudiated the idea as an unworthy suspicion." Evangelical Alliance, Proceedings, 1846 , 311-12. said, he had come 3000 miles to attend that convention; and when he started from home, he had no idea that they intended to make a British child of it. He had no idea of its being
made an anti-slavery Alliance. He need not have been afraid, as you will see.
The discussion grew angry. The American brethren can be warm and speak out strongly. They deal in brimstone, fire, thunder, and lightning, and such figures of speech. (Cheers and laughter.) They have not learned, as Dr. Candlish has done, to use " a little circumlocution." (Renewed laughter.)"7The quotation is from Dr. Robert S. Candlish's speech to the Free Church General Assembly on 30 May 1846. As spokesman for a committee charged with answering two 1845 communications from the American Presbyterian Church on the subject of slavery, Candlish claimed that the "pressure of business" had prevented the committee from drafting a "full and formal answer" and explained, "When you are to answer a formal letter from a church, it plainly must be done with a little circumlocution." Free Church Report, 1846, 14-15. They said to the Alliance, if that amendment of Dr. Hinton's passes, we must leave the Alliance. They had loved each other very much before. (Laughter.) They loved the Alliance still. In the language of Mark Antony they did not "love Caesar less, but Rome more"8Douglass alludes to Julius Caesar, act 3, sc. 2, line 13.—they did not love evangelical truth less, but slavery more. They said in effect, if you pass a resolution excluding our dear evangelical manstealers from your Alliance, we must go out of it.
Well, at this point some of the British brethren became faint at heart and pale in the face, and up they rose one after another and spoke in the following strain:—"We would exhort our brethren to be calm. We hope that nothing imprudent will be done. We do hope that we shall yet be brought to a judicious decision on this question. Remember the eye of the world is upon us—the eye of Protestantism is upon us—and, what is more, the eye of Rome is upon us. If we should separate on this question, oh! what will become of us. We would, therefore, move that this whole question be remitted to a committee."
It was at once seconded, and the question of slavery was referred to a committee. That committee was made up to a large extent of the American deputation—Drs. Cox, Patton, and others of the Presbyterian manstealing order in the United States. They discussed the question. They examined it, by day and by night for six days. About the middle of the week, the Rev. Dr. Smythe, of South Carolina, I believe, the gentleman who invited the deputation of the Free Church to the south, and recommended them to the cordial sympathy and aid of the evangelical manstealers of the Union, rose, and begged that the Committee be instructed to take time—not to decide hastily—and in their absence he recommended that the Alliance should pray for the brethren composing
the committee, and that they might come to an enlightened decision. This Dr. Smythe is the same Dr. Smythe who gets his living in South Carolina for preaching to a congregation entirely composed of slaveholders—he is the same Dr. Smythe who marries slaves, leaving out the important part of that solemn ceremony, which says, "Those whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder." He is the same Dr. Smythe who lives in the midst of slaveholders and slavedrivers, and never opens his mouth against slavery—the same Dr. Smythe who is the unblushing advocate of slavery—if not the actual owner of slaves in America—and yet this Dr. Smythe asks the brethren to pray, and they did pray. (Cheers and a slight hiss.)
I am not ridiculing prayer; I am ridiculing that kind of prayer, and that kind of union which exists in the slave states of America, and which existed in the Evangelical Alliance. We have a great deal of this kind of piety in the United States, and it was very manifest in the Evangelical Alliance. I speak of that Alliance as an injured man—as one whom that Alliance has neglected—as one whom that Alliance has stabbed to the heart, and I will speak out, let who will condemn me. (Cheers.)
Sir, there is a recreant black man in this country going by the name of
friends of emancipation—the abolitionists. If he goes through this country, as I expect he will, for I expect that the Free Church of Scotland will employ him to go about and defend her, as he has the Judas Iscariot impudence to stand up in defence of her connection with the manstealers of America; and I trust he will be informed that I arraigned him here as a traitor to his race, and as representing no portion of the black, or coloured population in the United States.
Let us go on to the question before the Alliance. It was a very plain one, namely, whether a manstealer ought to be regarded as a standing type and representative of Christ, or not? The question was, whether the Alliance would throw the garb of Christianity around the slaveholder, or not. It was a yea or a nay. The committee reported, and a resolution was drawn up, to the effect that the Alliance was confident that all who are slaveholders would be excluded from the branches of the Alliance, who are so by their own fault or for their own interests. Just as if there was a man living who held slaves for any other person's interest but his own, or that holding slaves could be the fault of anybody else but the man who held them. This was base and mean; and I find that even the eloquent Dr. Wardlaw who had stood up as the friend of the negro, deserted him, by agreeing to this abominable compromise. Dr. King and Dr. Robson were silent in reference to the compromise, men who should have spoken out beyond all others, especially as the United Secession Synod had declared for no union with slaveholders.
This conclusion come to on the part of the committee was for a time quite satisfactory to the American deputation. It was satisfactory in the morning, but unsatisfactory in the evening. They turned themselves round; it was a great improvement on the proposal of Dr. Hinton, but after all it was not what the American brethren wanted, and they refused to consent to this compromise. They demanded that the matter should be re-committed, and proposed that they should go about it in the midst of prayer and fasting, and they actually wanted their dinners. (Laughter.)
This produced a wonderful sensation in the Alliance. Such was their zeal for evangelical manstealing and evangelical manstealers, that they could not eat. Their appetites left them, and it was made a matter of awful solemnity that those brethren could not eat. (Cheers and laughter.)
After this the American deputation demanded that every trace of the discussion, and of the resolution referring to slavery, should b e erased from the records of the proceedings of the Alliance. Three millions of human beings in slavery, in the American plantations, were imploring the members of the Alliance to open their mouths in their behalf, and to condemn those who enslave them; but the American deputation said, no such condemnation shall appear in the proceedings of the Alliance. Sir, that Alliance acted like a band of infidels rather than of Christians. At the bidding of those American manstealers, the English, and Irish, and Scotch members expunged from the record of their proceedings every word of condemnation of slaveholding in the United States. I hold, that no body of men could be gathered together from any quarter in this country but ministers who would have been guilty of this deed. (Cheers.) Amongst nobody, however degraded, but there would have been some to speak out in condemnation of slavery. Yet those men of high profession passed by on the other side, and never raised a whisper in condemnation of the system,—in effect saying, as far as the Evangelical Alliance is concerned, "Go on, plunder the slaves as you will, the Evangelical Alliance will not utter a word of condemnation against you." (Great applause.)
Let me say one word about the Free Church of Scotland; for it has taken shelter behind the Evangelical Alliance,10Douglass apparently alludes to a recent article in the Glasgow Scottish Guardian, a Free Church newspaper from which Garrison quoted earlier in the meeting. As quoted by Garrison the article reads: "Our readers must have observed that the resolution which was adopted by the Evangelical Alliance proceeds upon the same sound and scriptural principles which have guided the proceedings of the Free Church in relation to American slavery." Glasgow Argus, 5 October 1846. and I want to say a word about the recent General Assembly of the Free Church. I happened to attend the Assembly, and I heard the speeches delivered on that occasion on the subject of slavery, and I heard the thunders of applause at the end of each sentiment, which looked like upholding the system of slavery. I could not before have believed that such sentiments would have received any degree of commendation from any of the people o Scotland; yet in Canonmills I heard the most infamous—the most blasphemous—sentiments uttered amidst applause, in defence of slavehold-
ing, and in defence of the Christian character of slaveholders, which I ever heard in any place.
I heard Dr. Cunningham say that Christ and his apostles would not only have sat down at the communion table with slaveholders, but that they would have sat down at the communion table with slaveholders who had a right to kill their slaves if they would, and never rebuke them. I heard him try to bring the idea that slaveholding is sin, and slaveholders sinners, into contempt; and I am sorry to say that he was heard, by some three thousand in number of an audience, with seeming approbation. The battle of anti-slavery is to be fought here not with infidels, but with the Doctors of Divinity of Canonmills—the God sent, God qualified, and God appointed preachers of the salvation of Christ. Those are the men who stand up as the indefatigable enemies of the down-trodden slave—who stand up in defence of men who drive to toil, to torture, and to death, three millions of their fellow men. (Cheers.)
To prove that slaveholding is not sinful in itself, Dr. Cunningham put forth the following argument.11William Cunningham offered his theory to the Free Church General Assembly on 30 May 1846. Free Church Report, 1846, 38. After admitting that Mr. M' Beth had fairly stated the question when he said it was plainly, Whether slavery was not in all circumstances a sin? he said Mr. M' Beth had stated that it was in all cases a sin; but he took the opposite side of the question—he took the ground that it was not always a sin. He thought that slavery might be a sin, and not the slaveholder a sinner. Suppose, he said, on the 1st of June next, the Parliament should pass a law declaring all domestics to be the slaves of their employers. I know that I should be a slaveholder, but could any man charge me with sin? " Hurra, hurra," shouted the Assembly, an innocent case of slaveholding has been made out. (Great laughter.) When they heard him putting the case, and admitting that Mr. M' Beth had rightly stated it, the whole Assembly had solemn faces, and seemed to be very concerned as to what great feat this mighty doctor would perform. When he put forth his argument, how ever, the enthusiasm was perfectly astounding.
But let us look to the argument and try to test its validity. If it is good in one case, it is good in another. Let us take the case of polygamy—a sin not to b e ranked with manstealing, because that, being the greater, comprehends it and other sins. Suppose on the 1st of June the Parliament were to pass a law declaring that all female domestics are to be the concubines of their employers, Dr. Cunningham would be a
polygamist; but I ask would he stay in that relation to his domestics? (Hear, and cheers.) I do not know that he would not. I certainly heard nothing in his speech to convince me that he might not. Why not? If in the one case, why not in the other? If he could become a slaveholder because the law declared him such, why not become a polygamist because the law declared it to be right? (Loud cheers.) Would Dr. Cunningham's argument have been received in any other case? In no other; and I maintain you are not safe in the company of such men, for those who will apologise for the stealing of black men, will apologise for the stealing of white men. (Hear, hear.) The man who will steal black horses will steal white ones. (Cheers and laughter.)
The man-stealers of America are upheld and sustained in their system of plunder by such arguments as that used in the Free Assembly; but I hope the people of this country will see to it that those using them do not go unrebuked. Let not the Warders, Witnesses, or Guardians12The Dundee Northern Warder, the Edinburgh Witness, and the Glasgow Scottish Guardian were three of the leading Free Church newspapers in Scotland. Cowan, Newspaper in Scotland, 40, 142, 236 - 37, 243, 248 - 49. suppose that the cry raised against the Free Church and the Evangelical Alliance is to be but a nine days' wonder. We will not be stopped by any impediments that can be thrown in our way. They speak of a decline of the interest on this question; but I would like to see it. I was in Dundee and various other places with Mr. Garrison, where we held meetings 6 months ago, and so far from the interest having declined in that time, it had doubled, and the hearts of the people are as ready to leap up at the voice of freedom as they were before. (Cheers.) They are as ready as ever to raise that cry, which has given the Free Church more pain than any thing else, "Send back the Money," and will keep up the cry, however long it may be, till the money is sent back. (Applause.)
We do not mean to lose sight of the Free Church by talking of the Alliance; and, as an individual, I will not be driven from my course by any thing the defenders of that Church can say of me. They have struck hands with slave [holder]s. I am a slave, and I do not expect, therefore, they will speak well of me. They indorse the Christianity of the slaveholders of America; I do not expect them to indorse mine. They are on the side of the oppressor; I am on the side of the oppressed; I do not expect they will commend me. (Great cheering.) These men have stolen the garb of heaven, the sacred name of freedom, to cover up the deeds of deep damnation of which they are guilty; I am for tearing asunder
that garment—I am for revealing the character of these manstealers—and exposing them in their naked deformity. It is not to be expected that they will speak well of my friend Garrison or of me, who come accredited by the tears, and groans, and grateful throbbings of three millions of human hearts in the United States. I look to them for consolation, and not to the Free Church of Scotland.
After pronouncing a high eulogium upon Mr. Garrison, he said it was no wonder that the Guardian and the pulpits of the Free Church fulminated against him.13Douglass again appears to allude to the Glasgow Scottish Guardian article quoted by Garrison earlier in the meeting. The relevant passage reads: "We do not suppose it will be necessary for us to trouble our readers much farther with Mr. Lloyd Garrison, Mr. Douglass, Mr. George Thompson, or the other American agitators—who, it will be observed, have been again attempting to get up one or two meetings in Edinburgh, and may perhaps, repeat the same experiment in our city. Their own exhibitions afford the grounds of their strongest and surest condemnation, and have speedily brought down upon them in this country the contempt with which they have long been regarded by all good men in America." Glasgow Argus, 5 October 1846. He was determined, he continued, to keep the conduct of the Free Church before the people, and with God's assistance, he meant to go over the length and breadth of Scotland, proclaiming in the ears of all its supporters, "Send back the money." (Cheers.) When they asked him if he believed in the Sabbath, he would reply "Send back the money." If they asked what church he belonged to, he would reiterate "Send back the money." If they asked him to come and join their church, not a supposable case, he would say, "Send back the money." In all and every circumstance, he would tell them to "Send back the money;" and wherever he met any of them he would look at them in such a way, as would make them feel that they are a brotherhood of thieves. (Applause.) If a Doctor of Divinity put the price of blood into the treasury of the Free Church, he would look upon him as a thief and a robber. If he defended the selling of human beings to build up the Free Churches, he would charge that Church with being a brotherhood of thieves. What was it to be a thief? It was to take or receive that which justly belonged to another. It was universally the opinion in Scotland, he believed, that a man was entitled to the fruits of his own labour. Even the Free Churchmen would admit that. The Guardian called him a chimney sweep,14The Glasgow Scottish Guardian, 31 May 1846 reported: "Mr. Douglass (the black) was (as he himself tells us) a "chimney-sweeper" when the Abolitionists promoted him to the questionable honour of being one of their orators, and sent him forth to try his hand in throwing dirt at Dr. Chalmers." and he had been a chimney sweep, but he had never in all his experience met with so black a job as this Free
Church business. He was no other man's property; his labour was therefore his own, and the Free Church of Scotland had no right to it. The Free Churchmen admit this, because they don't hiss. (Cheers and laughter.)
The Free Churchmen, by their silence, admitted that when they were guilty of taking £3000 from the slaveholders of America, which belonged to the slaves, being the fruits of their labour, that they were a brotherhood of thieves. After a few further remarks he said that the contributions to the Free Church were £2000 less this year than heretofore,15Free Church contributions for the year ending 31 March 1846 fell short of the previous year's level by more than £30,000. Because church revenues fluctuated annually, however, the impact of abolitionist agitation on church finances is not readily apparent. Brown, Annals of the Disruption, 609 , 816. and that if six month's agitation had produced this falling off, he had a notion [an]other six months would have a still more marked effect, and concluded by saying that the honest portion of the members of the Free Church who left the Establishment had greater reason for coming out of that Church than for coming out of the other. (Great applause.)