It will be remembered that we copied from the Advocate, in our paper of 27th May, a letter, purporting to have been written by "an American Abolitionist," opposing the appropriation of Mrs. Stowe's funds, to the "instruction or amelioration" of the condition of the free and fugitive slave portion of the colored people of the United States; denouncing all schemes of "instruction and amelioration," as delusive and cruel, while slavery lasts; ridiculing them as childish philanthropy; regarding such efforts as hurtful to the anti-slavery cause, and humiliating to the colored people.

  We felt called upon as soon as we saw this letter in the discharge of a duty incumbent upon us, as an advocate of the cause of the nominally free, as well as of the slave population of the United States, to expose, with some severity, the mischievous suggestions of this "American Abolitionist;" and it affords us much satisfaction to know that our "club" did good execution in the premises.

  The Advocate of this month gives us the benefit of nearly three columns, which we do not produce here, because we like, sometimes, to follow the example of our elders.—The Advocate having been careful to omit, from its columns, every connected sentence of the article of our's to which it professes to reply.

  Of course, the man of the Advocate has everything his own way. He can attribute to us every absurdity, cruelty, injustice, and egotism he likes; and his readers have to swallow all on his authority: having nothing withal to excuse their incredulity.

  We, however, will not follow the Advocate, literally; but, to whatever point we reply, that point shall be stated in his own words:

"The anti-slavery enterprise was not undertaken for the purpose of feeding, clothing, or educating the Free Colored people; nor for the purchase and liberation of individual slaves, or the relief of isolated [Illegible] of suffering, or to promote the escape of fugitives, or to found industrial institutions in Canada, or to forward emigration to the West Indies or anywhere else."

  Stripped of all disguise, this Anti-Slavery Advocate affirms that it is no part of the duty of abolitionists to assist the struggling Free Colored man in efforts to educate and improve the condition of "the Free Colored people" of the United States. The enumeration which he makes is, evidently, intended, simply, to strengthen the general argument in favor of his main position. It is much to be regretted that this sort of abolitionism is not confined to Ireland. The editor of the Advocate has sympathizing friends on this side the Atlantic, in this view of the case; but we usually regard such abolitionists as sham abolitionists.

  The Advocate is altogether mistaken in supposing the Free Colored people not to have been contemplated in the objects of the anti-slavery enterprize—the original declaration of sentiments pledged the American Anti-Slavery Society not merely to emancipate the slave, but to elevate the free people of color; and that has been considered quite orthodox work, among abolitionists generally, until very lately. Some few who have no notion of associating with colored people on terms of equality, would like "this elevation" part of abolitionism thrown tastefully into the back ground.

  Such persons will exclude a colored man fro their offices and stores, and will not have him seen there, except in the capacity of a porter, or a waiter.

  The Advocate assumes, throughout its article, that improving the condition of the Free Colored people is not appropriate anti-slavery work; that the Free Colored people may not receive the benefit of any funds intended for anti-slavery purposes; and that to help them is not, necessarily, to advance the anti-slavery cause. He says:

"We rejoice in everything that is done to help them, provided the funds for the promotion of the anti-slavery cause not be diverted to the benefit of those who have gained the priceless treasure of liberty. This would be like appropriating the funds of an hospital for the sick, to establish and support a gymnasium for the benefit of the healthy."

  It is evident, from the foregoing, that the Advocate has undertaken to plead a cause, about which, with all the assistance of "An American Abolitionist," he is but slightly informed. He is grossly ignorant of the real identity of the slave and the Free Colored people of the United States, who affirms the one to be sick and the other "healthy." There is, indeed, a difference between the slave and the free; but it is a difference to be described by no such extravagant simile as the Advocate makes. To talk of the Free Colored people as "healthy," while State after State passes laws for their expulsion; while the Fugitive Slave Law renders the liberty of every one of them insecure; while their children are excluded from schools in most of the States; and it is impossible for them to learn trades, and they are compelled to be the hewers of wood and drawers of water, proscribed, insulted and spit upon because of their identity with the slave—we say that to talk of the Free Colored people as "healthy," in these circumstances, is to add insult to injury. The Editor of the Advocate will have to change his philosophy on this point, before he can fitly speak for the American slave.

  We, in this country, do not measure any man's abolitionism by his professed love of the slave at the South. We have a better way than this. It is, "How does he treat his black neighbor at the North?" If he care nothing about the education, improvement, and elevation of the blacks where he is, we have no difficulty in disposing of his claims as an abolitionist. Stupid as pro- slavery men are ever here, they have been sagacious enough to apply this test, and a capital one it is. It is the old scriptural method, "For he that loveth not his brother, whom he hath seen, how can he love God, whom he hath not seen?"

  However strange it may seem to the impersonal Advocate, the Free Colored man in the United States is but"half free; for although not a slave to an individual, he is a slave to society; and the genuine abolitionists so regard him. The Advocate takes refuge behind "THE AMERICAN ABOLITIONIST." He cracks him up very high; he says, "the obnoxious remark to which we replied, were communicated by one who has been much longer connected with the anti-slavery cause than himself; whose services to it have been far greater than his own; and who has sacrificed more to its promotion than he has ever done or is likely to do."

  We do not object to any of this. It seems perfectly proper for the Advocate to compliment his friend, "the American Abolitionist," who, evidently, (for wise purposes,) prefers to be incog.

  The anti-slavery enterprize, however, don't belong to anybody in particular, on the ground of priority; it is not an invention, about which there need be any quarreling. We have never "served" the cause too faithfully, though we've done what we could, and can boast of having emancipated others before emancipating ourselves. We should like, however, (for the mere fun of the thing,) to know who this very self-sacrificing abolitionist is, and then we should be better able, perhaps, to appreciate his deep concern, lest money, designed to promote the cause of the slave, should be squandered in "delusive and cruel" efforts to educate the "Free Colored people."

  The Advocate finds, however, another standard, before he gets through, by which to determine the merits of men; for, with the consistency of a true Hibernian, he says, when referring to Gerrit Smith:

"Still, there are many laborers in the anti-slavery cause, who, in their measures and according to their gifts, have done as well [as Gerrit Smith.] It does not follow, because everybody has not vast possessions and a heart to distribute them, that they cannot do as much for the slave in some other way."

  Very good; and perhaps if you, Mr. Advocate, had thought of this in disposing of our poor merits, you might have raised us a peg higher than the estimate just given of us above; but neither our want of services, nor the services of that "American Abolitionist" in question, has anything to do with the point in controversy. Good men have erred, and will, probably, err again; and no good man, according to Mr. Phillips, should wish to be exempt from criticism.

  Whatever the editor of the Advocate may think, we believe that no better appropriation could be made (even with a view to the emancipation of the slave) of the funds of Mrs. Stowe, than that of establishing in this country, an INSTITUTE, in which colored youth can be instructed in certain lucrative mechanical branches; and we are very happy to know that in this opinion, the excellent authoress of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" fully unites.