Chapter XII

THE INTERNATIONAL STATISTICAL CONGRESS AND LORD BROUGHAM.

While in London transacting business connected with the exploration, it was Delany’s privilege to attain a distinction never before reached by a colored American under like auspices.

At this time he appeared more prominently before the American public, owing to his presence in that august assembly known as the International Statistical Congress, presided over by His Royal Highness Albert, Prince Consort of England.

At this Congress had convened the most intellectual and distinguished representatives of all the nations of the civilized world.[3] To this, by virtue of his position and acknowledged scientific acquirements, he received a royal commission, and sat, during its session, an honored member. His remarkable presence would, of itself, have attracted the attention of the Continental members; but a movement was destined to render him more conspicuous.

The value of his position in that learned gathering was doubly enhanced and appreciated by him. It was a triumphant recognition of the progress of his race, as well as of the ability of the representative. His admission into that Congress was not based upon national credentials,--for they would have been refused to him,--but was supported by his individual claims as the proud representative of his ancestral land.

His sterling ability won for him the friendly interest of the great Lord Brougham, who, at the first meeting, called the attention of the American minister to him, which remark, being construed offensively, resulted in the withdrawal of the American delegates, at the head of which was Judge Longstreet of Georgia. Through them and their pro-slavery partisans north and south, Major Delany acquired a popularity distasteful with the American public, to whom the circumstance was known imperfectly, and then only in a prejudicial manner. So many comments were made by the press, all tending to produce the utmost unpleasantness between the two countries, that it seemed likely to have resulted in a more disagreeable misunderstanding, but was checked by the inevitable ridicule which attached to it.

When the news of the withdrawal of the American delegates first reached the public, it was through an official source--a letter from Judge Longstreet, the American representative to the Congress. It was given to the public through Hon. Howell Cobb, of Georgia, secretary of the treasury under the Buchanan administration. And as it was only through this medium, we propose to furnish the statement of the principal personage in the affair, decisive and trustworthy, and also to reproduce the letter of Judge Longstreet, which, in view of the position occupied by them both at this time, will be of additional interest.

Delany says,--

“This is a subject upon which I never desire to enter. Very seldom--I think not more than two or three times, and then only to my most intimate friends--have I ever related the circumstance, and always approached it with sensitive delicacy; because to attempt to speak about it without relating the whole, is to make it ridiculous, and leave on the mind of the auditor the impression that there must have been on the part of the distinguished lord a most absurd and abrupt intrusion upon the transactions and doings of that dignified body.

“And since Judge Longstreet withdrew from that body immediately after the organization, and before doing anything, going home, and having nothing to report but the cause of his delinquency or remissness, his official report to the secretary of the treasury necessarily being concerning me, therefore I am compelled to give the facts as to how it really transpired. And certainly no one of the most sensitive delicacy about matters of this kind will accuse me of dragging in extraneous matter. Indeed, it ceases to be a question of propriety, and turns entirely upon a question of right, as to whether or not I have the right of self-defence against an attack by a high official of the government? Or is it not the government which attacks me through its foreign representative and cabinet minister? The entire affair was contrary to my desire, and by no means _flattering_ to me, as Judge Longstreet reported as officially follows.”

We give the following from the report of the secretary of the treasury for the year ending June 30, 1860:--

_Letter from A. B. Longstreet to Howell Cobb._

LONDON, July 21, 1860.

SIR: My mission to the International Congress terminated
abruptly, even before the first regular meeting for the
transaction of business.

At the appointed time (16th instant) a preliminary meeting
was called, to appoint officers and arrange the order of
business for the regular meetings. All the foreign delegates
were declared to be vice-presidents, and, by invitation of
the chairman, took their seats as such upon the stand. Lord
Brougham was, I think, the last member of the Congress who
entered the hall, and was applauded from the first glimpse of
him until he took his seat; it was near and to the left of the
chair. Mr. Dallas, appearing as a complimentary visitor,[4]
was seated to the right, in a rather conspicuous position.
Things thus arranged, the assembly waited the presence of his
royal highness, the prince consort, who was to preside and
open the meeting with an address. He soon appeared, delivered
his address, and took his seat. As soon as he concluded,
and the long-continued plaudits ceased, Lord Brougham rose,
complimented the speech very highly and deservedly, and
requested all who approved of it to hold up their hands. We
did so, of course. This done, he turned to Mr. Dallas, and
addressing him across the prince’s table, said, “I call the
attention of Mr. Dallas to the fact that there is a negro
present (or among the delegates), and I hope he will have no
scruples on that account.” This appeal was received by the
delegates with general and enthusiastic applause. Silence being
restored, the negro, who goes by the name of Delany, rose and
said, “I thank your royal highness and Lord Brougham, and have
only to say _that I am a man_.” This, too, was applauded warmly
by the delegates. I regarded this an ill-timed assault upon
our country, a wanton indignity offered to our minister, and a
pointed insult offered to me. I immediately withdrew from the
body. The propriety of my course is respectfully submitted to
my government.

What England can promise herself from exciting the ire of the
United States, I cannot divine. Surely there is nothing in
the past history of the two countries which offers to her the
least encouragement to seek contests with the great republic,
either national or individual. Will not her championship of the
slave against his master be in full time when the slave shall
complain of his lot and solicit her interference.

My reasons, more at large, for the course that I have pursued,
will be found in the London Morning Chronicle, herewith
transmitted, which, in its slightly-modified form, I pray you
to regard as a part of my report.

I am, sir, your most obedient, humble servant,

A. B. LONGSTREET.

Hon. HOWELL COBB, _Secretary of the Treasury_.

_The American Delegate and Lord Brougham._

_To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle._

SIR: After what occurred at the first meeting of the
Statistical Congress, I withdrew immediately from that body,
intending to offer no reasons for my course, because, from
what I saw, I judged that they would not be worth the paper
on which they might be written. I reserved them, therefore,
for my own government. After waiting a while to see what
comments the papers would make upon the opening scenes of the
Congress, I commenced my despatch to my government; but a
friend, in whose opinions I have great confidence, said he
thought I ought to address the people here in vindication of
myself. Upon this intimation (for it was rather an intimation
than counsel) I sat down, and, amidst a thousand doubts and
interruptions, wrote the subjoined communication. I was just
bringing it to a close for the press yesterday (Thursday), when
I received information that, at the opening of the meeting
on the day previous, Lord Brougham had explained his remarks
at the first meeting, as I would see in a paper referred to,
and the information came with a request that I would return
to the Congress. I read the explanation in that paper and two
others. They only differ in their reports of it, but they all
concur in making his lordship disavow any intention to show
any disrespect to the American minister or the United States;
and they make him say that he merely meant to call to notice
an interesting or a statistical fact, viz.: that there was a
negro in the assembly. Now, I found myself in a very ticklish
predicament. It was not his lordship’s remarks so much as the
reception they met with, by all my associates of the Congress,
that determined me to leave it. The signs were infallible that
in that body I could not be received as an equal, either in
country or in character, while the negro was received with open
arms. They understood his lordship as I did. All the papers
understood him in the same way, and some of them glory in the
exposure of the American minister, and promise themselves a
rich treat when the president shall discover in what contempt
his minister is held here. All this remains precisely as it
did before his lordship’s explanation. Of course, therefore,
I cannot return to them. They would receive me courteously,
no doubt,--possibly, now, with plaudits,--but why? Not from
personal respect to me or my country, but to avoid schism
in the society--to preserve its popularity. I am only three
years removed from an Englishman (I date from the birth of
my government), and I have too much English spirit in me to
thrust myself into any company upon charity. Had the delegates
received his lordship’s remarks with a silent smile (ill-timed
as they were), and Dr. Delany’s response in the same way, I
never should have left the Congress. But the plaudits came
like a tempest of hail upon my half-English spirit. Nothing,
then, in the piece needs qualification, but what refers to
his lordship’s intentions. Learning these from his own lips,
I sat down to correct it in all that imputed to him, directly
or impliedly, wrong intentions and wrong feelings; but I found
that they were so often referred to in a vast variety of
ways, so often intermingled with sentiments void against the
principal, but good against the indorsers, and in all respects
good against the leading spirits of Europe and the Congress,
and so essential to the harmony and grammatical construction,
that if I undertook to correct generally, I should hardly leave
it printable or readable. And yet the piece must now appear;
for if not, it will go forth to all Europe that the United
States delegate took offence, pro-slavery like, at an old man’s
playful remark, left the Congress at the beginning, and that
neither explanations nor entreaties could bring him back. I
have neither time nor patience to remodel it, much less to
rewrite it. I am called away to-day; I should have been off
from London before. In my dilemma I have concluded to publish
the piece just as I wrote it; not now as fairly representing
his lordship, but as exactly representing my understanding of
him when I left the Congress, and the reasons. I am at the
bar now, and I am to be judged of by the reasonableness of my
interpretations and of my conduct founded on them. I beg his
lordship, in consideration of my situation, to indulge me in
this. In return, I beg the reader to treat as revoked, and
utterly null and void, every reference to his lordship that is
in the slightest degree inconsistent with his explanation. I am
not very far behind him in years; I have long been his debtor,
and I esteem him almost reverentially; and if he is not debtor
for his judicial reform bill to my native state, there is the
most remarkable coincidence between the two systems that ever
occurred since the world began. If he is, he ought to esteem
me for my state’s sake. Be this as it may, we are too old to
quarrel.

A. B. LONGSTREET.

_To the Public._

Before I terminate my first and last visit to Europe, I deem
it due to my country and myself to leave behind me a word of
comment upon a most remarkable incident of that visit. It may
be of some service to the people on both sides of the Atlantic.
England owes to my country much respect--to my native state
a little. I came hither as a delegate (and by accident the
only delegate) from the United States to the International
Congress, now in session at this place. The appointment was
made by request of the authorities of this country. I am a
native of the State of Georgia, the birthplace of the two
gallant Tattnalls, the one well known to me, the other well
known to England. He was that humane and chivalrous commodore,
who, at the peril of his commission and his life, rescued the
captain and the crew of Hope’s sinking ship from a watery grave
at Peiho. He has received much praise for the deed, but not
quite all that is due to him, for in yielding to his generous
impulses, he forgot that his no less gallant brother was borne
from the battle-field at Point Peter, severely wounded by
British muskets. What is done in war should be, but is not,
always forgotten in peace. The commodore’s conduct was approved
by his government--that government which Mr. Dallas represents
at the court of St. James.

The Statistical Congress convened, a preliminary meeting was
held to appoint officers and arrange the order of business.
All the foreign delegates were declared to be vice-presidents,
and they took their seats on the platform with the presiding
officer. Mr. Dallas, a complimentary visitor, took his seat to
the right of the chair, Lord Brougham to the left. All things
being now in readiness for the opening of the regular meeting,
his royal highness, Prince Albert, appeared, took the chair,
and opened the meeting with that admirable address which has
been published, and which carries its highest commendation on
its face. As soon as he had concluded, and the long-resounding
plaudits ceased, Lord Brougham rose, and after a few remarks
strongly and deservedly complimentary of the address, and
after calling upon all present to testify their approval of
it by holding up their hands, (!) he turned to the American
minister, and addressing him across the table of his royal
highness, said, “I call the attention of Mr. Dallas to the fact
that there is a _negro_ present, and I hope he will feel no
scruples on that account.” This appeal to the American minister
was received with general applause by the house. The colored
gentleman arose, and said, “I thank his royal highness and your
lordship, and have only to say _that I am a man_.” And this was
received with loud applause.

Now, if the noble lord’s address to the American minister was
meant for pleasantry, I must be permitted to say that the
time, the subject, and the place were exceedingly unpropitious
to such sallies. If it was meant for sarcasm, it was equally
unfortunate in conception and delivery. If it was meant for
insult, it was mercilessly cruel to his lordship’s heart,
refinement, dignity, and moral sense. I could readily have
found an apology for it in his lordship’s locks and wrinkles,
if it had not been so triumphantly applauded. The European
delegates understood it; the colored gentleman understood
it; and from the response of the latter we can collect
unerringly its import. It was meant as a boastful comparison
of his lordship’s country with the minister’s. It was meant
as a cutting reflection upon that country where negroes are
not admitted to the councils of white men. This is the very
least and best that can be made of it, and the dignity of
the American minister’s character and office, his entire
disconnection with slavery personally, and his peculiar
position in the assembly, were no protection to his country
from this humiliating assault; nay, he is selected as the
vehicle of it before the assembled wisdom of Europe, who
signify openly their approbation of it. All the city papers
that I have seen differ from each other in their report of this
matter, but they all soften its rugged features somewhat. The
Times is the most correct, but at fault in making Lord Brougham
preface his remarks to Mr. Dallas with, “I hope my friend, Mr.
Dallas, will forgive me for reminding him,” &c., and in making
Dr. Delany (the colored gentleman) say to Lord Brougham, “who
is always a most unflinching friend of the negro.” If one or
the other of these remarks were made, I did not hear it; the
doctor would hardly have used the last.

Now, I take leave to say that a Briton was the last man on
earth who should cast contemptuous reflections upon the United
States, and the delegates the last men on earth who should
have countenanced them. Not one of them, not a man on all
the broad surface of Europe, can assail that country without
assailing some near home-born friend of his own language and
blood, or some kinsman by short lineage from a common ancestry.
She spreads herself out from the Atlantic to the Pacific,
from the Gulf to the Lakes, and through all her length and
breadth she is one vast asylum for the poor, the oppressed,
the down-trodden, the persecuted of the world. Her sons are
a multitudinous brotherhood of all climes, religions, and
tongues, living together in harmony, peace, and equality, so
far as these can possibly prevail within her borders. Say
what you may, think as you may, sneer as you may, at her
“peculiar institutions;” she is, after all, the good Samaritan
of nations. Do a people cry and waste from famine? She loads
her ships with supplies, and lays them at the sufferer’s doors
without money and without price. Do an oppressed people strike
for liberty? You will find some of her sons under their flag.
Does a wife’s cry come across the water for help to find a
noble, long-missing husband? She fits out her ships; her
volunteers man them; they search nearly to the pole; learn
the husband’s fate; disburden the wife’s heart from suspense,
and then lie down and die from the exposure and toils of the
search. Does she find a nation’s sloop of war afloat, still
sound but unmanned? She puts her in decent trim, and sends her
to her owner in charge of her own men and at her own expense.
“Bear with me.” If “I am become a fool in glorying, ye have
compelled me, for I ought to have been commended to you.”

Such a nation is not to be taunted, certainly not by Great
Britain. Her slavery is a heritage, not a creature of her
own begetting. It was forced on her against her wishes, her
prayers, and her protestations; screwed down upon her, pressed
into her, until it has become so completely incorporated with
her very being, that it is now impossible to eradicate it. The
term “slave property,” is borrowed; it is not of her coinage.
In all her slave states there are not ten men living (until
very recently not one) who ever made a slave of a free man,
counting the Hottentot a freeman. Their sin, then, is not
in making slaves, but in not restoring them to liberty, in
courtesy to the sensibilities of those who made them for us.
Before they make this exaction of us, they surely ought to have
the magnanimity of Judas, and lay the price at our feet. But
let us look into this matter a little.

There are about 4,000,000 of slaves in the United States.
They are worth, at a very moderate calculation, $240,000,000;
but as we wish to keep within the realm of morality, we
cast that little item aside. There they are, from a day old
to one hundred years old--ignorant, helpless, thriftless,
penniless. What would become of them if set free? They would
suffer, languish, die. Does charity, does religion, demand
of us to put them in that condition? How are they to live?
“Support them yourselves,” said a man to me once, of more
_negrophilism_ than brains. What would we have to support them
on, and what obligation is there upon one class of freemen to
support another? The very act of emancipation would consign
nineteen twentieths of the masters to abject penury and want.
There would be no more conscience, mercy, or remorse in the
scramble between the races for the provision on hand at the
date of the act, than there is for the means of safety among
the crew of a sinking ship. The last year’s crop of cotton
was, in round numbers, 4,500,000 bales. Three fourths of this
amount goes abroad, and most of it to England. Will the reader
take the trouble to compute the amount of shipping it takes
to transport that quantity of cotton from America to Europe,
the number of hands employed in the transportation, and the
number employed in working up the raw material? Shipping,
seamen, manufacturers, under-workmen, must all go by the
board the first year of emancipation. Now, add to the exports
80,000 tierces of rice and 128,000 hogsheads of tobacco in
the same category (nearly), and tell me if it is possible to
conceive of a greater calamity that could befall the world
than the immediate emancipation of the slaves of the United
States. Nine millions, at least, would certainly be ruined
by it (the slaves and their masters), as the first fruits of
the measure; and hundreds of thousands, if not millions more,
in the free states and kingdoms, i.e., all who are dependent
upon cotton, rice, and tobacco in any way for a living,--as
its ultimate fruits. Will it be said that the negroes will
still produce these articles for their own benefit? How could
they, unless the masters would give them the land to cultivate,
implements to till it, and food and clothing for one year? To
do this would cost the masters at least two hundred million
dollars more; and what would become of the whites and their
dependants in the mean time? But if the negroes had the
outfit, they would not make the fifth part of these articles
the first year. Look at your freedmen in the West Indies. We
regard them as a warning, not as an encouragement. In the
face of the thunderbolt, I would assert that our slaves are
infinitely healthier, holier, and happier, than your freedmen.
Will it be said that white labor would supply their places?
How could we hire white labor? And if it performed the work,
where would the slaves be? But what of foreigners dependent
upon those articles? Will it be said the shipping and labor
would be turned into other channels? What other? The world does
not produce the article, nor the wants of the world a demand
for them, if it did. This thing of diverting large amounts of
labor and capital from one channel into another, is a work of
time; it cannot be accomplished in a day. They who have seen
the effects of a change of fashion, simply upon many laborers,
may form some distant idea of the consequences of turning
millions of property and labor into new channels. Time may turn
the sailor into a farmer, but death would overtake him before
employment, where there were practised farmers enough to supply
the demand.

Now, I could say much more to show the utter impracticability
of emancipation in the United States, even upon the score of
humanity; but enough is said until what is said be fairly
answered. Until it is fairly answered, until some practicable
means is pointed out of ridding ourselves of slavery, I enter
my most solemn protest against all denunciation of our country
on account of it. It is like denouncing a man because he
carries an incurable disease; and coming from British lips,
it is like stabbing a man, and, while catching his blood to
work into puddings, abusing him for bleeding, and crying out
all the time, “Cure yourself! cure yourself! or keep out of
decent company!” But if abuse, vilification, sarcasm, and
contempt, are to be the lot of slaveholders, let it be the lot
of slaveholders alone, and of those alone who thrust themselves
unbidden into the society of their betters.

Whatever his lordship did not intend by the remark,--and I am
ready to believe that he did not intend to wound,--he certainly
did intend to bring to the minister’s notice that England made
no distinction between men on account of their color; and
herein his lordship was lamentably unfortunate, for the whole
scene showed that not only he, but all his applauders, make
a marked distinction between colors. Would not his lordship
have had more respect for the feelings of any white man than
to have made him the object of special notice--and such a
notice!--to men gathered from all quarters of the world? Would
his lordship’s discourtesy to a white man have been applauded,
as it was, by gentlemen of refinement and delicacy? True, it
hit Dr. Delany’s sensibilities exactly in the right place, for
he returned thanks for it; but the chances were a thousand
to one that it would have enkindled his indignation. “What!”
he was likely to have said, “is it a boast of the nobility
of England that I am admitted to a seat among white men?”
His thanksgiving, too, was applauded--a thing not exactly in
keeping with our ordinary dealings with white men. And when he
proclaimed the indubitable fact, “that he was a man,” again he
was applauded. If any other man had arisen in the assembly,
and said the self-same thing, he would have been laughed
at, not applauded. Again: his lordship pointed him out as a
“negro,”--that was the word,--not, as some of the gazettes have
it, a “colored person,” or “colored gentleman;” the Times has
it right. Now, if he had felt a due regard for the doctor’s
rank, would he not have softened his designation, as the papers
have kindly done for him? I am told that the doctor is a member
of the Geographical Society, and a delegate from Canada. If
so, I demand, by all the canons of courtesy, why he was not
called to the stand as one of the vice-presidents, and placed
right between Mr. Dallas and myself? Here would have been a
scenic representation of thrilling moral effect--more eloquent
of Old England’s love of freedom and contempt of mastery than
all lip-compliments of all her nobles put together. Or, if that
seat was too low for the doctor, why was he not placed between
Lord Brougham and the chair? Had I seen him there, verily my
own heart would have swelled with a compliment to noble Old
England which no lips could have fitly uttered. Where was the
doctor at the prince’s reception? I did not see him there. To
what section does he belong? I do not find him allotted to
either. To how many of the entertainments has he been invited?
Now, in all this, I detect a lurking feeling, ever and anon
peeping out, which convinces me that the colored man is yet
far, very far, below the white man in public estimation, even
in Europe; and, until this is conquered, let not the European
assume to lecture the American upon his duty to the slave, or
upon the equality of the races. Why, if the thing is fated to
us, like death, can any man of common humanity and generosity
take pleasure in throwing it in our teeth? Slavery is either
a blessing or a curse. If a blessing, why disturb us in the
enjoyment of it? You Englishmen ought to plume yourselves
upon it, for it is your benefaction. If a curse, you should
not embitter it. We regard it as a blessing; why disenchant
us of the delusion? You say it is a great sin. I doubt it,
as I find it; and shall ever doubt, while Paul’s Epistle to
Philemon is universally acknowledged an inspired epistle. (See
note on page 115.) But suppose it a sin; has God commissioned
you to reform it? and do you think you ever will reform it
by eternally sprinkling vitriol upon the master? As for your
contempt, we would rather not have it, to be sure; but if you
will be content with that, we will live in peace forever, for
it is an article in equal store on both sides. If you cannot
condescend to our company, we will not complain at giving a
place to Dr. Delany, and we can beatify you with four millions
precisely such. But in your intercourse with us, do not, for
your own sakes, forget all the rules of delicacy, benevolence,
and humanity, for every adult of us can stand up and say, “I am
a man!” Farewell to thee, London, for a short time; one more
brief look at thy wonders, and then farewell forever! Another
visit to Liverpool; I like her better than London, because
she likes my people better. “Interest!” “Cotton!” It may be
so, but I am grateful for love of any kind in England. Never,
in all my long, long life, did my heart-strings knit around
a fair one so quickly and so closely, as they did around a
lady in London, who approached me, and said, “Mr. Longstreet,
I must get acquainted with you. I love your country; I have
several kinsmen there.” That’s natural; that’s woman-like. It
is for man to draw favors from a country and curse her. God
bless her! And God bless the family in which she said it. As
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, slaveholders, are in heaven, I hope
to get there, too. May I meet them all there! But whither am
I wandering? Liverpool--another look at Liverpool, another
benefice to the English Cunard line, and then farewell to
Europe forever and forever!

A. B. LONGSTREET.

P. S. I forgot to mention many kind invitations that I have
received from distinguished personages. I declined them all,
not indifferently nor disrespectfully, but because they were
obviously given to me as a member of the Congress, which I was
not when they reached me, and never shall be.

NOTE. The Epistle to Philemon has been an enigma to
commentators for seventeen hundred years. That it is the fruit
of divine inspiration has never been questioned by Christians;
and it is but a letter from Paul to a brother, pleading for a
runaway slave whom he sent home to his master. Read it, and
see the Christians who joined in it. In Paul’s day they did
not steal negroes and murder their masters. There were no
Browns and Hugos in those days. Philemon was beloved of Paul,
was doubtless a preacher, and had a church in his house. Is
not the enigma now solved? Can we not now see why the epistle
was inspired? What would become of us if we were bound to
emancipate under all circumstances, or forfeit heaven? I have
only hinted at the horrors of the thing.

“It was made the subject of inquiry by some as to the means by which I entered that scientific assemblage. It was through the same doorway which admitted every other member, not a delegated representative, that is, a royal commission.

“By the established usages of this annual assembly, any persons of known scientific attainments, great authorship, mechanical inventions of mathematical complication, researches and discoveries in topographical, geological, or geographical explorations, are regarded as legitimately entitled to the consideration of the royal commissioners, three of whom are always appointed by the sovereign or ruler of that country to which the succeeding Congress is assigned to meet. These commissioners have all the arrangement of the coming Congress in their hands, and issue all the commissions of special membership to those not accredited as national representative delegates.

“By courtesy, the diplomatic representatives of every nation present are _ex-officio_ vice-presidents, with two specially selected vice-presidents.

“When the time drew near for the arrival of his royal highness, the Congress was organized, the members taking their seats, and the official dignitaries seated on the platform.

“The royal crimson chair, and one on either side reserved for the prince and his associates, vice-presidents, were vacant. Great demonstrations were made, which gave evidence that some important personage approached, when it was soon observed that it was the arrival of the ex-lord high chancellor of England. He was escorted to his seat on the platform.

“Soon after, music was heard, succeeded by the entry of pages, unrolling the crimson carpet, which preceded the entry of the prince president. At this the whole Congress arose to their feet, with rousing claps of applause. Ascending the platform, his royal highness stood before the chair of state, bowed, and took his seat, when immediately the Hon. George M. Dallas, the American minister, and the Right Hon. Lord Brougham, were conducted by the royal commissioners to the vacant seats on the right and left of his royal highness.

“The prince, with his usual dignity, now arose, bowed, and commenced reading one of the most profound and philosophically simple and comprehensive addresses delivered during the present century.

“In the course of his remarks, he alluded to his former preceptor, Count Vishers, paying great compliments to him. He concluded amidst suppressed applause, suggestive of a feeling which hesitated to show itself, for fear of committing an impropriety before the royal author. That great and generous-hearted gentleman, Lord Brougham, instantly arose, and addressing the Congress, said, ‘I rise not to address myself to his royal highness, but to you, my lords and gentlemen of the Congress, not to permit the presence of his royal highness to restrain you from giving vent and full scope to that outburst of applause, which you are desirous of giving in approbation of that great good sense, philosophical and most extraordinary discourse, to which we have had the honor and pleasure, as well as profit, of listening.’

“Immediately taking his seat, the assemblage gave vent to rapturous applause. As it concluded, he again rose to his feet, remarking in general terms that it was a most extraordinary assemblage of the world’s wisdom, and that those who were there were fortunate in being members of such a body, presided over by that great personage, the prince consort of England.

“He also made allusions to the presence of the imperial director of public works from France, the representatives from Brazil, Spain, and some other countries, as an evidence of the progress of the age; then taking his seat, and instantly arising in such a hasty manner, as though something important had been omitted, that he attracted the attention of the entire assembly; when, extending his hands almost across his Royal Highness, he remarked, ‘I would remind my friend, Mr. Dallas, that there is a negro member of this Congress’ (directing his hand towards me): smiling, he resumed his seat. Mr. Dallas, seeming to receive this kindly, bowed and smiled.

“Count Vishers now rose to reply to the compliments made to him by the prince; then followed the director of the public works from France, followed by the Brazilian representative, and concluding with the Spanish diplomatist.

“While I fully comprehended his lordship’s interest, meaning, and its extent, the thought flashed instantly across my mind, How will this assembly take it? May it not be mistaken by some, at least, as a want of genuine respect for my presence, by the manner in which the remarks were made? And again, would not my silence be regarded as inability to comprehend a want of deference on the part of his lordship? Or should I not be accused of regarding as a compliment a disparaging allusion towards me? These thoughts passed through my mind so soon as his lordship concluded his remarks, and as soon as the minister from Spain was seated, I rose in my place, and said,--

“‘I rise, your Royal Highness, to thank his lordship, the unflinching friend of the negro, for the remarks he has made in reference to myself, and to assure your royal highness and his lordship that _I am a man_.’ I then resumed my seat. The clapping of hands commenced on the stage, followed by what the London Times was pleased to call ‘the wildest shouts ever manifested in so grave an assemblage.’

“So soon as the applause had subsided, the prince arose and announced the Congress adjourned, to meet at two o’clock the next day; the sections to meet in their several departments at ten, to meet the general Congress at two.

“These were my words _verbatim_. Why Judge Longstreet’s sarcastic interpolations, I do not know, nor am I able to account for such manifestations.

“They were not simply British, as the learned judge complained in his singular report to the secretary of the treasury, ‘because the loudest and wildest shouts’ came from the Continental members. _These manifestations_ I can only attribute to a spontaneous outburst of gratification to them at a scene so unexpected in all its relations, without any reference whatever to the United States. And Judge Longstreet entirely misinterpreted the interest and meaning of the manifestation.

“I take pleasure in making the correction now, as far as the generous great are concerned, that it may be favorably recorded in the history of our time, because they would not beg an interpretation at the hands of those who wilfully persist in an historic misrepresentation of that which in all diplomatic and national civility--to say nothing of generosity--should have been understood and accepted by all present.

“The next day, when the general Congress convened, on calling for the reports from the several sections, which presented the papers for ratification before that body, alphabetically arranged, and by courtesy commencing with America, it was discovered that the entire American representation, except Dr. Jarvis, from Boston, Mass., had withdrawn,--the fact being stated by the doctor, who presented the paper placed in his hands by Judge Longstreet, whose office it was to present it as head of the representation, and only direct national delegate (Dr. Jarvis being only a state delegate). Lord Brougham, the first vice-president, who, in the absence of the royal president, filled the chair, arose, remarking, ‘This reminds me of a statement made in the papers this morning, that I had designedly wounded the feelings of the American minister at this court, which I deny as farthest from my intention, as all who know me (and I appeal to the American minister himself, Mr. Dallas being a friend of mine), whether I have not uniformly stood forth as the friend of that government and people? Now, what is this “_offence_” complained of? Why, on the opening of this august assemblage (possibly the largest in number, and the most learned, that the world ever saw together from different nations, to be among whom any man might feel proud, as an evidence of his advance, civilization, and attainments), what is the fact? Why, here we see, even in this unequalled council, a son of Africa, one of that race whom we have been taught to look upon as inferior. I only alluded to this as one of the most gratifying as well as extraordinary facts of the age.”

“The noble and philanthropic lord then took his seat amidst another _cause of offence_.”

These are the facts of that historical incident quoted from his own writings on the subject. Whatever may have been the motive underlying the action of the southern judge besides the reasons given to the public by him, it is not our province to interfere with; but if it were his intention to bring the high-toned negro delegate, receiving the same honors accorded to the other members of the Congress, into derision, in his undignified haste his failure was most signal in Europe, as well as with most thinking persons, not governed by their prejudices, in America.[5]

The following comment, written at the time, is from the papers of his friend, Mr. Frederick Douglas, who, towering in colossal grandeur beside the self-made heroes of our country, his eagle glance noting every pulse-throb of the great American body politic, seems a proper exponent of these indisputable facts.

“_Dallas and Delany._

“Some of our American journals, to whom black in anything else
than in the human heart is a standing offence, are just now
‘taking on’ very ruefully about what they are pleased to call
a flagrant insult offered to the American minister, Mr. G. M.
Dallas, by Lord Brougham, at a meeting of the International
Statistical Congress, held in London. Small pots boil quick,
and soon dry up, but they do boil terribly while they are at it.

“It would hardly be safe to say whereunto our present wrath
would carry us, were we not somewhat restrained and held down
by the onerous burdens of electing our president for the
next four years. As an American, and being of the unpopular
complexion, we are rather glad to see this sensitiveness.
The most disgusting symptoms sometimes raise hopes for the
recovery of the patient, and it may be so in this case. The
standing offence of the venerable and learned Lord Brougham
was, that he ventured to call the attention of Mr. Dallas, the
American minister plenipotentiary, to the fact that a ‘negro’
was an acting member of the meeting of the International
Statistical Congress. This was the offence. It struck home at
once. Mr. Dallas felt it. It choked him speechless. He could
say nothing. The hit was palpable. It was like calling the
attention of a man vain of his personal beauty to his ugly
nose, or to any other deformity. Delany, determined that the
nail should hold fast, rose with all his blackness, right up,
as quick and as graceful as an African lion, and received the
curious gaze of the scientific world. The picture was complete.
Sermons in stones are nothing to this.

“Never was there a more telling rebuke administered to the
pride, prejudice, and hypocrisy of a nation. It was saying,
‘Mr. Dallas, we make members of the International Statistical
Congress out of the sort of men you make merchandise of in
America. Delany in Washington is a thing; Delany in London is
a man. You despise and degrade him as a beast; we esteem and
honor him as a gentleman. Truth is of no color, Mr. Dallas,
and to the eye of science, a man is not a man because of his
color, but because he is a man, and nothing else.’ To our
thinking, there was no truth more important and significant
brought before the Statistical Congress. Delany’s presence
in that meeting was, however, more than a rebuke to American
prejudice. It was an answer to a thousand humiliating inquiries
respecting the character and qualifications of the colored
race. Lord Brougham, in calling attention to him, performed
a most noble act, worthy of his life-long advocacy of the
claims of our hated and slandered people. There was, doubtless,
something of his sarcastic temper shown in the manner of his
announcement of Delany; but we doubt not there was the same
genuine philanthropic motive at the bottom of his action, which
has distinguished him through life. A man covered with honor,
associated with the history of his country for more than a half
century, conspicuous in many of the mightiest transactions
of the greatest nation of modern times, between eighty and
ninety years old, is not the man to indulge a low propensity to
insult. He had a better motive than the humiliation of Dallas.
The cause of an outraged and much despised race came up before
him, and he was not deterred from serving it, though it should
give offence.

“But why should Americans regard the calling attention to
their characteristic prejudice against the colored race as an
insult? Why do they go into a rage when the subject is brought
up in England? The black man is no blacker in England than in
America. They are not strangers to the negro here; why should
they make strange of him there? They meet him on every corner
here; he is in their cornfields, on their plantations, in their
houses; he waits on their tables, rides in their carriages,
and accompanies them in a thousand other relations, some of
them very intimate. To point out a negro here is no offence to
anybody. Indeed, we often offer large rewards to any who will
point them out. We are so in love with them that we will hunt
them; and of all men, our southern brethren are most miserable
when deprived of their negro associates. Why, then, should we
be offended by being asked to look at a negro in London? We
look at him in New York, and Mr. Dallas has often been called
to look at the negro in Philadelphia.

“The answer to these questions may be this: In America the
white man sees the negro in that condition to which the white
man’s prejudice and injustice assign him. He sees him a
proscribed man, the victim of insult and social degradation.
In that condition he has nothing against him. It is only when
the negro is seen without these limitations that his presence
raises the wrath of your genuine American Christian. When
poor, ignorant, hopeless, and thoughtless, he is rather an
amusement to his white fellow-citizens; but when he bears
himself like a man, conscious of the godlike characteristics
of manhood, determined to maintain in himself the dignity of
his species, he becomes an insufferable offence. This explains
Mr. Dallas, and explains the American people. It explains also
the negroes themselves. It is often asked why the negroes do
not rise above the generally low vocations in which they are
found? Why do they consent to spend their lives in menial
occupations? The answer is, that it is only here that they
are not opposed by the fierce and bitter prejudice which
pierces them to the quick, the moment they attempt anything
higher than is considered their place in American society.
Americans thus degrade us, and are only pleased with us when
so degraded. They tempt us on every side to live in ignorance,
stupidity, and social worthlessness, by the negative advantage
of their smiles; and they drive us from all honorable exertion
by meeting us with hatred and scorn the instant we attempt
anything else.

“Had Mr. Delany been a mean, poor, dirty, ignorant negro,
incapable of taking an honorable place among gentlemen and
scholars, Mr. Dallas would have turned the specimen to the
account of his country. But the article before him was a direct
contradiction to his country’s estimate of negro manhood. He
had no use for him, and was offended when his attention was
called to him.

“There was still another bitter ingredient in the cup of the
American minister. Men can indulge in very mean things when
among mean men, and do so without a blush. They can even boast
of their meanness, glory in their shame, when among their own
class, but who, when among better men, will hang their heads
like sheep-stealing dogs, the moment their true character is
made known. To hate a negro in America is an American boast,
and is a part of American religion. Men glory in it. But to
turn up your nose against the negro in Europe is not quite so
easy as in America, especially in the case of a negro morally
and intellectually the equal of the American minister.”

Before leaving London, Delany read, by special request, a paper on his researches in Africa, before the Royal Geographical Society, and as a traveller and explorer, received the privileges extended by that body, and as such was received with due courtesy in many of the noted places dedicated to art and science, both in England and Scotland; among them, the Royal College of Surgeons, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, the Hospitals, Geological and Anatomical University, Museums, and Libraries.

From a general invitation extended to the members of the Congress, and a special one to himself, by the Right Hon. Lord Brougham and Vaux, ex-lord high chancellor of England, he received his membership, and attended the Congress of the National Association for the Promotion of Social Science at Glasgow, Scotland, the September following. Here a distinguished recognition of his worth awaited him. While at this Congress he elicited expressions of a most complimentary character from Lord Brougham, who presided here with the usual dignity ascribed to him at the International Congress in the absence of his royal highness.

The following is extracted from the Report of the First Section on Judicial Statistics, by the president (Lord Brougham) and Dr. Asher:--

“I think I am authorized, not only on the part of the council
of the society, but on the part of the authorities in Scotland,
strongly to recommend and to invite all persons to attend
that Congress. The authorities take the greatest interest in
it, both at Edinburgh and at Glasgow. The magistrates of both
countries, and the judges, take the greatest interest in the
Congress; and I hope they will not be disappointed in having
the attendance of many foreign gentlemen from different parts
of the continent; and I also hope that our friend Dr. Delany
will attend upon that occasion, for he will then be in the
country which first laid down the maxim and the principle of
law: That the moment a slave (which Dr. Delany is not, but
which his ancestors were) touches British ground, his fetters
fall off. That was said when that decision, which does
immortal honor to the Scottish courts, was pronounced. It was
a remark made in one of the arguments--‘_Quamvis ille niger,
quamvis ne candidus esses_.’ That remark was made by a very
celebrated judge, the son of a very great mathematician, one of
the greatest mathematicians that ever appeared in this country,
the son of the celebrated McLaurin. I hope Dr. Delany is here.
In the sanitary section, as my noble friend Lord Shaftesbury
informed me before he left the room, he was of very great use,
indeed, in the information which he conveyed to them, and
that he made a most able speech, as Sir Roderick Murchison
informs me, at the Royal Geographical Society, which he lately
attended. I hope therefore, that we shall have the advantage of
his attendance upon that occasion.”

After the close of the Congress, he was invited to lecture on the subject of his explorations, in many parts of England and Scotland, meeting everywhere with marked success, for nearly seven months. At these lectures an appreciative audience greeted him: among them many of the _élite_ of the kingdom convened, as was manifested at his reception lecture at Brighton, on the seaside, during the watering season, given in the pavilion of the Marine Palace of William IV.

At the conclusion of these, he prepared to return to Africa, having entered into obligations in England and Scotland, especially the latter place,--which in good faith are yet to be fulfilled,--when the secession of South Carolina reached Great Britain.

With almost prophetic vision he saw the great work apportioned for his race in the impending struggle. Therefore he turned his thoughts homeward to prepare himself for his portion of it.

Hastening home from a land where he was everywhere the recipient of distinguished courtesy, in order to cast his lot with his people for good or evil fortune, he reached Canada forty-five days before the attack on Fort Sumter.

There he remained watching the progress of the rebellion, which, from the first, he foresaw, and thus expressed himself, that it would be long and desperate in its course.

The following is the speech of Dr. Delany, at the close of the International Congress:--

“I should be insensible, indeed, if I should permit this
Congress to adjourn without expressing my gratitude for the
cordial manner in which I have been received, from the time
when I landed in this kingdom to the present moment, and in
particular to the Earl of Shaftesbury, the president of the
section to which I belong, as well as to every individual
gentleman of that section, it matters not from what part of the
world he came. I say, my lord, if I did permit this Congress
to adjourn without expressing my gratitude, I should be an
ingrate indeed. I am not foolish enough to suppose that it was
from any individual merit of mine, but it was that outburst of
expression of sympathy for my race (African), whom I represent,
and who have gone the road of that singular providence of
degeneration, that all other races in some time of the world’s
history have gone, but from which, thank God, they are now
fast being regenerated. I again tender my most sincere thanks
and heartfelt gratitude to those distinguished gentlemen with
whom I have been privileged to associate, and by whom I have
been received on terms of the most perfect equality.” (Great
applause.)

We subjoin to this an extract from the Globe, published in Toronto, Canada, by which the attention of the House of Lords was called to him:--

“In the course of his remarks in asking a question in the
House of Lords for the production of certain papers relating
to the suppression of the slave trade, Lord Brougham said
that his noble friend near him (Lord Shaftesbury) could bear
testimony to the useful assistance given to the department
of the Statistical Congress, over which he presided, by Dr.
Delany, the negro member of the Congress. (Lord Shaftesbury,
‘Certainly.’) He had shown great talent in his addresses to the
section. He had also appeared at the general meeting over which
he (Lord Brougham), in the prince consort’s absence, presided.”

The following extract is from page 39 of the Transactions National Asso. Prom. S. Science:--

“At our first meeting in 1857, the subject of Judicial
Statistics was brought under consideration, in one of the able
and useful papers read by Mr. L. Levi, and in consequence of
the discussion which took place, very considerable improvements
were introduced into that department of the treasury, so
that, at our last Congress, hopes were entertained of such
complete and regular information being afforded, as the
Annual Report of the Minister of Justice presents in France.
A most important step has since been made in that direction.
The meeting of the International Statistical Congress has
been held under the presidency of the prince consort, whose
opening address, marked by the sound sense, the accurate
information, and the general ability which distinguish all
his royal highness’s exertions, is in the hands of all our
members. Having been requested to superintend the judicial
department, and having afterwards, in his royal highness’s
absence, presided at the general meeting, it was a great
satisfaction to find the unanimous adoption of the plan which
it became my duty to report, embodying the resolutions in
full detail upon the whole subject; and there was a strong
recommendation unanimously passed, urging the government to
appoint a permanent statistical commission. The report has been
presented to the House of Lords (where, indeed, I had several
years before brought forward the resolutions which formed its
groundwork this year), and is now among the printed papers of
the session. There were naturally present at this International
Congress eminent men from various parts of the Continent; and
in announcing the assembly of the present meeting, I took
the liberty of inviting those distinguished foreigners, with
whose presence I trust we are now honored. Among others was
a negro gentleman of great respectability and talents, Dr.
Delany, who had attended different departments, and in his able
addresses has communicated useful information and suggestions.
When inviting him to this Congress, I informed him that he
would have the satisfaction of visiting the country which
first declared a slave free the instant he touches British
ground. Dr. Delany’s forefathers were African slaves; he is
himself a native of Canada.[6] It is truly painful to reflect
that, although his family have been free for generations,
his origin being traced to one whom the crimes of white men
and Christians had enslaved, he would be, in the land of
trans-Atlantic liberty, incapable of enjoying any civil rights
whatever, and would be treated in all respects as an alien,
the iniquity of the fathers being inexorably visited, not upon
their children, but upon the children of their victims, to all
generations,--children whose only offence is the sufferings of
their parents, whose wrongs they inherit with their hue.”

“NOTE.--It was stated to Dr. Delany that he would be in the
country which first pronounced the great decree of a slave’s
fetters falling off the moment he touched British ground. This
was first decided by the courts of Scotland, in the case of
Knight, a negro, 1778. In Somerset’s case, 1772, the courts of
England had not laid down the rule generally, but only that a
negro could not be carried out of the country by his master.
In the Scotch case, the printed argument was prepared by Mr.
McLaurin (afterwards Lord Cleghorn, son of the celebrated
mathematician), and the appropriate motto which he prefixed to
his paper was:--

“‘QUAMVIS ILLE NIGER, QUAMVIS TU CANDIDUS ESSES.’” Ibid. p. 53.

A most remarkable feature noticed in the position of the learned lord, in relation to Major Delany, was the occasion which he took to proclaim to him--a black man, and for the first time before such a distinguished audience--that important historic fact in legal jurisprudence, as found in note above, that it was in Scotland in 1722, the great declaration was made by Lord Cleghorn, that the moment a slave touched British soil, he stood a freeman “by the irresistible genius of universal emancipation.”

It is also worthy of record that so many long years should elapse, and he be made the first to receive the great decision from history correctly given by no less personage than the ex-high lord chancellor of England.