The Whig Party Vs. Abolition

Last fall t was Ihought to ba very uncharïlahle in the abolitionlsts to asserl, that a formal allianco had been entercd into between the Whigs of the South and of the North, by which the latterbound themaelves to co-operate with their Southern brcthren in resistingal! the measures of the aboütionists, and thcreby prolongiag dl th0 horrors of slavery. The South now claims that the agreement thu3 entered into shall befulfillod in all tts provisión. In a debate in tho House of Representatives, Juno S, on expunging the 2lst rule of the House, which excludes abolition petitions, PIr. Wise remarked, in reply to Mr. Adam?, who had said the adopiion of that rule was an administration or Democratie measures."And what aulhoriíy has the gentlemen tor implying this to be an admini?traiion measure. when the present Secretary of State, representing Massachusetts himself, in the Cabinet, pledgedhitnselfto Virginia froin her Capüol, that her institutions should not be touclied by him - that this delicate subject should be lefl where i'. was left by the framers of the Constitotion, UNToucnr.D, undütttrbed, tinugitated by him and those toko acted voith him at the North. If by au administration measure, the gentleman means that the majority of non-slaveholding metnbers of the North, combined with a fewfrom the South wiil repeal this rule, I confesa that as to that I am not so well or so lully advised. VVe shall see. Butiftheydo, t wü! badly comport with thtir pi ofessions and■ , ■ Jïs tions bcfore the elcction thnt thev wer not of the aboütion party in the" North thii3 early to repeal this rule, now fortLJ first tima deelared to be a measuro of ft! adrnii:istration; and this repeal by thitA ministralion, will not contrast well in th8' South with the adoptionof the measureby the last administraron. But until af convinced otherwise, I will not distrust ih9 whigs of the North on tho subject. If tj16 rule had never been adopted I would hard. ly asli TiiEM now to adopt it for the first time; but having been adopted, I confidenthj trust in them not to repeal it." It nppears, tlien, that according to the terms of "the pledge," by the Secretary of State in behalf of iiiraself and those who acted with kim in the JVorth," Mr. Wiso had rcasnn "coNyiDENTLYTO tbüst," that thO Wbigs of tho North would co-opcrate with theSouih in sustaining and perpetuatingtha GAG. So much, it seems, was implied, iD "the pledge." But lo aek the Northera Whigs to adopt such a rule for the firat time, woukl be more than was conlamed in the )ond{"If a man be found sleaüng unv of his brctliren of the cbüdren of Israel, ánd ma. Kr.TJI MEKCHANDIZS OÍ' hím, Ot fELLETII him; ihcn that ihief shall dio: and thou slutlt )ut away evil from amon vou n Dkut: 24, 7. ' ' Under lbo oíd covenant, it was an evil ii Israel to sell or make merchandize of abrother Israelite,, and he who wrought thÍ9 evil must die; is it any Icss evil, or less wicked, under thc new and better covenant of tlia 5ospel, to make merchandize of a Cheistiar brotktr, for whom Christ died? Is the bond ofunjon bt-tween Cbristians less eacred or ess intiniate,Uian that belween Israelitea of liesame nation?