University of South Carolina Libraries
The answer can only b ra in c principles embraced-in the first-ad second of these resolutions. The former affirms the acknoweledged principle that a ship or vessel, on the high seas, in time of peace, and engaged in a lawful voyage, as. by the law of nations, under the exclu aikr.jurisdiction of the State to which her flag belongs, and the second, that if forced by 6tress of weather, or other unavoidable cause, into a poirt of a friendly power, sh6 wouldlose none of the rights appertaiung to heron the high seas; but, on tle. con trarfshe, with her cargo and peirsons on board,.including their property ani all the rights belonging to their personal relations, would be placed under the protection which the law of nations extends to the -unfortu nate in such cases. . . It is on this solid basis that.the rights of our.citizens rested. The laws of nations, their paramount authority, overruled, in those cases,- the municipal laws of Great Britain, even within her territorial limits; and it was to their authdritive voide that her Goernment yielded obedience in com pensating our citizens for the vi6lation of rights placed under their sacred protection. Having now. established the principle necessarily implied in the allowance of compensation in the cases of the Comet and Enco'mium, it will be an easy taik to shdw that is eqiially embraces the case of the .Enierprise. It is admitted by the British Minister, that there is no other distinction between it-and the other -two, except that it occured before, and the others after, the act abolishing slavery in the colonies went into operation; and it must, of course, be equally comprehended in the principles embraced in the first and second resolutions, in virtue of which corn pensation was made, as has ,been shown; unless indeed that act had the effect of preventing it, which I shall now show it could not, according to the law of ina lions. A simple but decisive view will be suffi cient for this purpose. I have just shown that the sctor Parliament. for abolishing the slave trade, although it expressly pro bibited the introduction of .slaves within the limits of the British territory, or detain-. ing them in that condition, when. brought in, so far from overruling, were. overruled by the principles embraced in these resor hitions. If that act did not overrule the laws of nations -in those cases, how, I ask, could the act for the abolition of slave-y in'thi colonies overrule them in a . case in every 'essential . circumstance . acknowl. edged to.be the same? Can. a possible reason be assigned ?. The authority by which the two were enacted is the same, and the one as directly applicable to- the case as the other. If, indeed, there be a diffeten'ce, the one fer the abolition of the. slave trade is,-of the two, the most app.li cable. , That act directly prohibits the in-. troduction of slaves within the British do minion, in the most unqualified manner,-or the retaining them, when introduced in that condition; while the object of the act for the abolition of slavery in the colonies, 1 wat.'o emancipate those who were such under the authority o the British laws.. It is true, it abolishes slavery in the British. dominions, but that is no more than had previouity -.ben dome., ar .far - as -vlaem. brought into her dominions were.concern ed,by the actfor Abolishing the slave trade. And yet we see .that act was oyerrulbd by the law of nations, in the case of the Comet and.Encomium. How, then, is it possible that of.two laws, enacted by the same au thority, both to the same case,' should be overruled by the'law of nations, and ihi. other overrule it? It is clear that it is im-. possible; and that if the one cannot divest the rights of our citizens, neither can the other; and, of conrse, that the principle on which compensation was allowed in the cases of the Encomiun and the C-omet, equally embraces that- of the Enterprise. Both acts were, in truth but mutdici'pal laws; and, as such, neither could overrule the laws of nations, nor divest our citizens of their rights in the case undor considera tion. In the nature of things, the laws of nations, which have for their object the regulation of their intrrcourse of States, must be paramount to municipal laws, where their provisions happen to come in to conflict. If not they would be without authority. If this be so, there can be no discrimisation between the three cases, arid, in that case, our citizens would have ne just claim for compensation in either. it follows; that the principle which embra ces one, embraces all. There can be no just distinction between them; and I shall next proceed to show, that, in attempting to make a distinction where there is no dif ference, the British negotiator has been compelled to assume the very point in con troversy between the two Governibents. In doing this, I propose to follow his argu ment, step by step, and prove the truth of mny assertion at each step. He sets out with laying down the rule, by which he asserts that those claims should be decided, which he says, "is that those claimants must be conisidered entitled to compensation, who were lawfully in pos session of their slaves within the British territory, and who were disturbed in their legal possession of those slaves, by func tionarnes of the British Government." I object not to the rule, If our citizens had no right to their slaves, at any time after they entered the British territory-that'is, if the mere fact of entering extinguished all right to them, (for that is the amount' of the rule)-they could of course have no claimn on the British Government, for the plain reason that the local authority, ini seizing and detaining the negroes, seized and detained what, by supposition, did not belong to them. That is clear enough; but let us see the application: it is given in a few words. He says: "Now the own ers of the slaves on board the Enterprise never were lawfully in possession of those slives within the British territory;" as signing for reason "that before the Enter Prize arved at Bermuda,- slavery. had been abolished in the British Empire" an assertion which I shall show, in a sub sequent part of my remarks, to be errone ous. From that,.armd that alone, he comes to the conclusion, "that the negroes on board the Enterprise had,by enteriang with in the 'British jurisdiction, acquired rights which the lqcal courts were bound to pro tect." Such certainly would have b~eti the case, if they had been brought in, or entered voluntarily. Hie who. enters vol. itiv-stblnis 11imsClf, Wi~L all s rignts, to its'laws, and is as .mach bound to submit to them as its.citirtns or subjects. No. .one denies that, bifihat is'not the present case. They entei'ea not voluntarily, but from necessity; and.Wteviery point at issue is, whether the 9r.-rlh-gzoicipal laws could divest theriponWrs of--property in their slaves on engtng 'British itritory, in casey suiches. the Eiterprise, *hen the vesseEfa- ae Ibreed into their territory .by nieessity, thirgugh an act of Providence to savaie live's.of. those on board. We deny..they can; indiniaintain.the opposite ground:--that the law of nations ta such cases interposes- and protects the vessel and those on board, with their rights, a gainst the municipal laws of the State, to which .they,bve never .9ubmitted, and to which'it would be frue. :.and inhuman as well as unjust, to iubject - them.. Such is clearly the point at issue between the two Governmients; apd.it ii not less clear, that it is the very point issutped by the British negotiator in the controversy. He felt, in assuming his ground, that the general principle was agaist him, accord ing to which thi municipal laws *yield to the laws of nations in such cases; and in order to take himself out of its operation, he attempted to make a distinction equal ly novel and mitenable. He asserts "that there is a dietinction between laws bear-. ing on the personal liberty of man, ind laws beiting' upon. the property .which man may claim in irrational antmals. or inanimate:hinigs;" anil concedes "that if a ship containing suchk animals or things, were driien. by stress of weather. into-a foreign port, ir woulki b highlyunjust that the-owtnershould'be stripped 'of what belongs to him, through.thealpplieation of th'emunicipalaw of tie St~it to whicli he had not voluitirilj.-stbmitted himself." Yes, it would. be'b9th unjust and inhuman; and because it would be so, it is contrary to the law of nations, which is but the rules of justice and-humanity applied to the in tercourse of atiidns; and- therefore it is that it interpos'es in cases'like tie prese'nt, and places under its protection the rights of the unfortunate, even against the mu nicipul laws of the place. - But he, asserts that the principle does not extend to the cases in which rights of property in persons are couceined, (for such must be the toeaning, or it' is yholly irrelevant to theq'nesilon at issie,) because "there are are ibree parties tothe transac tion; the ownei of the car;o, the local au thority, and the alledged slave' and the third party is no less enitled than the first to appeal to the-local' atithority -for such protection as the lau-or the land may af ford him." "This is ifie position on- which the British 'negotiator meioly rests his ar gument; and if this fails, the ivlle.must fall to the ground. It is not difficult to see, from what he saiys of two parties ap pealing to the local authority that be.tac itly puts aside the- law of nations,'and as sumes the parties to be under tdie munici pal law of the place; and, also that ihose laws, and not the law of nations, are the standard by which their rights are to.be judgid; but is itnot mtanifestthislis an as sumption, 'in another form,'of the point in controversy! Against it, unsustained jid unsustainable, by authority or reasoq,'I. highest thorityyths.of,theBritisirGOvt erpment.itelf-in the:.cases of the Cohet4 and.Encomium, backed by unauswerali reasons. - If the distinction-be true at all, between property in persons and property in things, or irrational animals, it was, . to the . full, as applicable tb those-cases as it it.io that of the Enterprise. , In them tde 'ight of property in persons was involved."ad -,the three parties included, to the same extent, 'as in that. Nor was personal liberty less concerned. As faras British laws ~could affect the r ightsof ouricitizens, the negroes beloiging to the Comet and Encomiium were as free as those belonging to the En terprise. A n act of Parliament, as has been shown, forbade theirtitroductiont; and ftor feited the rights of- their owners, thereby tmaking them free, with rights to maintain, as far as British -legislatton could make them so; and yet, after fall and mature'in vestigation and reflection for the samerule applied to them, which, it is conceded, would apply in similar cases to property in things, or irrational animals. Now,' I ask, if the act for the abolition of the slave trade, which directly forbids the introduc tion of negroes as slaves, and forfeits the rights of their-owners, did not, as we have seen, justify the distinction in the cases of the Comet and Encomium, now attempted to be made between the two descriptions of property, howv could the act for the abo lition of slavery justify it in the case of the Enterprise? Iin the former, there were all the. parties, with their respective rights,. just the samen as in the latter, aid ifthe lo cal authorities were not bound to recog nise andI protect the -negroes in the one case, why, I ask, were they in the other ? Can a satisfactory answer be givent... And, if not, what becomes of the distinction, with all its consequences. attempted to be de:~ duced from it?. *The British negotiator, as ifcnsiu of the weakness of the position, attempts immediately to' fortify it. He says: "If, indeed, a municipal law be made, .which violates the lawvs of nzations, a question. of another'kind may arise. But the munici pal law which forbids slavery, is no viola ion of the laws of nations, .. Itis, on the contrary, in strict harmony with the laws of nations; and, therefore, when slaves arec liberated,'accordinig to such municipal law, there is no wrong done, and there can be no compensation granted;" a position preg nant with meaning, as will hereafter ap pear, but I must say, like all his others, at mere assumption of the point at issue, ex pressed in vague and indefinite language. If, in asserting thatda muniicipal law abol ishing slaver is nota violation of the laws of nations, it isuteant that it is inot a viola tion of'those laws for a State to .abolish slavery which exists tinder its authoriy, -i may be~ readily admitted, without prej udice to the-rights 6f our citizens in the case in question, though it is a little re markable, that the British Government allowed compensat~n'to 'their own sub jectsby this very act under- which'slave-' ry was abolished--..authority in ilite'et cen tradiction to thi~1aidertion that tio compes sation can be grantedw'ehe'n the act is ap plied to the ease of. 'dtir citizens,...forced, without .thqir consenTinto- its territory. mlunicipial laws, not in violation of the a -laws of nations, ire 'alid agsint those t lawa, when' the'y edmi in onfiet *ith ' them' howecan the asiinction, adtbimp I to1k driwn bitween the rights of property t in things, by irratiojial 'animals, and in per- C sons, 'bejusfiied? or how'can th* allow- I ance of-compensation'id ths cases "of' the 't Comet and Encomium be expliided? I. J put the qnestion. Was the law forthe ab- c olition of the slave trade, a violatiquof the a laws of nations? And if noi - violation, t as it certainly was not, how came com- e pensation to be granted in those' cases?- ' Can an -answer. be given? ~ Aid' if not, I what becomes of the distinction ittemlpted I to he taken? Bit aniother measing' may t be intended; tharit was n6 violation of the c law of nations to extend *the act, for the C abolition ofslavery in the British territo- I rips, to qases suchas ie Enterpose. If that is intended, it'would 'be ie .all the other distinctions which have been attemp- 1 ted-butan assumption of the pottin con- a trovery. tI I have now stated, in- his words, every s argument advanced by the'BrtisN nego tiator to sustain -. the .distinction which- he has attempted between thei cased of 'the i Comet and Encomium','atd-tliat'of the o Enterprise, and have, I trust, estapllshed, a beyond controversy, that there .is no ra; n rational grouhd whatever 'for the aisdic- t| tion.' When again pressed on th6 subject P by -our Minister, who was not satisffed u with his arguments. he-assumed thebroad 1l grqutwd that.Great Britain-had theight-to il forbid the recognition qf .slavery within b her territory' tfid is 'our claim was in- V cotiisiint wlih sicl right, 'it could -o- be t allowed, and on this closed the correspon- tl dence. It is easy to 'see, if she *ps such v right, in the broad. andungtialifWdgjense 0 in which it ishd 'dowin, at4' ap'id . to b the tate -in' .(tistion, ' it'ex'teduio all- i rights whatebdr,' whether it' be' ht of c property ii' things and iriatiorldauintals, e or'. growing -out' of persoonal-'tel1len6, g whether founded:..in..consent or not. All ti are..either the creatures of posiuvenuct- p meats, or subject to be: regulated-and con- a trolled by municipal laws; and- Ae has s just the same right to prohibit the recog- ti nitioi of any 'one or all of thoss'i-ihts v within her territory, as the one in ques- s tion.. But who'dani doubt ihat suchpro- p hibitibn, If eiteiidedto 'cases'fsrpes, :1 such.a?_the. Eiterprise, wonild he.be..most a flagraptviolaiori sfihe laws of naions. as c understood and acted on by all ivilized nations, and even as admitted. anji'-acted- si on by herself' in thecases of the Comet v and Encomium? - To us this is not a mere abstract ques- g tion, nor one simply relating to the free ti use of the .high seas. It cbesm nearer t home. it is one of free and safe4passage e from'one port to anothpr of our Unos ; Ps ti much so to us, as. a question toniung the i free and safe use of the channelsbetween t1 England and Ireland on the one.eide, and 11 the opposite coast of the contiei o'the p other, would be to Great Britsi.' To uti- 5 derstand ita-deep impotancet, it must tl be borne in mind, that the islen of Ber. ri mtiii lies but .a 'short. distact.of dur v cos, and that the channel. beeg the I Bahama-islandi-and Floridzim det less e than twdhuidred miles iwluA tW and on fi awrivrsy we ... ...~~ thi(iuh hiis Jong, nar SW and iicut- A chapoel.,.the immense trade- betpeen our s ports on the Gulf of Mexico' andNbeAt. vi lantic coast nabt pass, which, at no dis tant period, willconstitute more ;hap half a of the trade of the UISon. Th'e'prineiple it set up by the British ,Government, if car- h ried out to itsfull extent, woul4 slo-.much- p to close this all-important chalnel;;hy red- c< dering. it too hazardous for use.- .She has % only to give an indefinite- extension -to the' m principle applied to the caseof-the' Enter- % prise, and the work would be dlone;.and I why has she not as good a rigt to apply ec it to a ca~rgo of sugar or cottonga:s to the di slaveswho produce it ? . .A .:. . ti I have now, I trust, established, to the al satisfaction of the Senate, what I- proposed al when I commenced ; that the principle on ii which compensation was allowe' in the b cases of the Comet and Encomium, equal- al ly embraces that' of the'Entergiise ; - that si no just distinction can' be-tiade between re themn ;- and that the British'begotiator, in al attempting .. to make .a distinction,' was p forced to assume the point in coroversy. And here I might conclude 'my remarks, ea as. far.-as these' resolutions are concerned, but- there are other questions connected ki with this subject, not less important, which el demand attention, and which-I shall pro. ii coed to consider. -f-i Itsis. impossible to read -the correspon- fe dence between the t wo Governments with- tc out the-ipapression - that the question in- ki volved in, the negotiation was one of deep' n embarrasment to - the British ministry. o1 The rgreat-lengthbofthe. negotiation, con-- r sidering the simplicity anid paucity of the oi points involved, the-long delay before an se anwercould be-had at all, and the man- ei ifest embarrassment in making the dia- al tinction. between the cases allowed, and*l .the one rejected, plainly indicate that there p was some secret, unseen' diiculty in the ti way, not directly -belonging to the ques- a tions involved in the cases. What was Ie that dilliculty ? If I mistake not, it will Ia be found in the condition of things in En-. ec gland,' and especially in reference v those* b in power. It is my 'vish to do the Min- p istry ample justice, as I believe they were tj desirous of doing us; but it is net to be b disguised that there was no-small diflicul- tl ty in the way, from the state of things un-- o der which they acted, and which I shall b next explain. tc' The p resent Whig ministry. held, and al still hold, their power, as is well known, y by a precarious tenure. Their party is, -t in fact, in a minority, and can odly sup- y port themselves against the poweiful par- p ty in opposition,~ by such adventitious aid i as can be conciliated. Among the subdi- a visions of partyin Great Britain, the Abo- o lition interest as' one of no littre'power; 'b ad it will be seen at once, that 'th.. ques- a tion involved in the negotiation is one in reference to which they would have no (< little sensibility. Like all 'other fanatics, y they have -little regard either to reason or' n justice, where the object of' theitr euthusi:: o sem isiconcerned. "Todo justice,iwithont- 't ofendij,'sneh a- .party,'ia such 1( cas6, 'c was. no - esy-task ; and to offeind them, eI without losing 'he aseendency of their par-. ti ty, and 'the reins osf oeranent,, was al-, , most impossible. 'The Ministry had to act b undr these conflictitn 'considerations; 13 iad I intend no disrespect it saying that he dMire of conciliatingen strogg a party, nd:'tereby retaining PlaCe, when op osed to the demanils of'justice, could 'not e without its weight. The course. ac ordingly, takdn, Was such as might have e anticipa'td from these opposing mo ives. To satisfy our urge.nt claim for usticercompensation was allowed in two f the cases, and t6 avoid offending a pow rful and zealous party, a distinction was aken betwe'en'them and the other, he tfects of which would be to close the loor against future demands of the kind. mean not to say, that deliberate and in entional.injustice was done; but simply, hat these conflicting causes, which it Is hvious, from the circumstances of the ase, must have been in operation, would, y .a natural and an unseen bias, lead to bat result. Butt another question of far greater mag itude,.growing out of the foregoing, pre entiitself for consideration: to what must hat result finally lead,.if Great Britain hould persist in the decision which it has made ? I hold it impossible fQr her. to laintain the position she has taken. She 3ust abandon it as untenable, and take one f two other positions: either that her mu icipal'laws are paramount to the law of ations, when they come into conflict ; or at. slavery-the right of man to hold roperty in man-is against the law of ations. - It is only on the.one or other of hese suppositions that the act for abolish ig slavery can have the force .she attri ates to it. The former. she cannot take, ithout'virtually abolishing the entire sys mi of international laws. She could not iink of assuming that her municipal laws ere paramount, without admitting those f oiher States also to be so; which would e to annul the system, and substitute in a place universal violence, discord and Dnflict. This'would force her on the oth r ilternative, which, if it were true, would ive her a solid foundation for the rejec on of our claim, on the incontestable riciple that. the laws of nations would o.t eaforce that which violates them rlves.. Nor are there wanting indica one, in the correspondence, (to some of rhich I have alluded,) that the position e has taken in reference to the Enter rise, is but preliminary to the adoption of at alternative. There are, however, many.diflicultis to be got over, before she n openly avow. it. It would require, in the first place, no mall share of effrontery, for a nation hich has been the greatest slave dealer n earth; a nation, which has dragged a renter number of Africans from their na ve shores to people her possessions, and >sell to others, and which forced our an estors to purchase slaves from her agaist 3eir remonstrance, while Colonies, (not nprobably the ancestors of the owners of iose slaves to purchase the ancestors of ie slaves, for which she now refuses com ensation)-it would, I repeat, require no mall-effrontery to turn round and declare iat she neither had, nor could have, the ight to the property she sold us, nor could re, without deep crime, retain possession. Ve all know what such conduct would be alle&imony indlrvidua, wit ibu't, indeed, blyoed'lj a* Woder feek of the purchase gew; and thereis' no'good-reason why it ould-be called -by. a less harsh epithet, Phen applied torthe conduct-of nations. But there. is another dimeuty. The rowal of the principle would place her conflict with all the- authorities on the tw of nations, and the custom of all ages, et and present; and would bring her into alhision with all nations whose institutions ,ould be outlawed by- the- avowal, and ,hat, perhaps, she would most regard, it -ould put her in conflict with herself. es, she who refuced to compensate our itizens for property unjusly seized and stained undet her authority, on the ground mat she had forbade the recognition of avery in her territory, had then, and has, tthisday, hundreds of thousands of slaves tite most wretched condition, held by eir subjects in her Eastern possessions; adworse, by herself. .With all her beast, m is a slave holder, and hires out and cieves hire for slaves. I speak on high uthoitygthe Asiatic Journal for 1838, rinted uit her own metropolis. Here the Secretar read the following tracts from pages-22I: Goernutent ofsaaes in Malabar.-We ow that there is not a'servant of Gov rment, in the south of India, who is not timaely acquainted with the alarming ict, that hundreds of thousands of his hlow-creatures are fettered down for life the degraded destiny of slavery. We ow that these unfortunate beings are at, as is the case in other countries, serfs Sthe soil, and incapable of being transfer id, at the pleasure of their owners, from te estate to anuthegr. "No, they are daily ,Id,like cattle, by one proprietor to anoth ;-hs husband is separated from tihe wife ad the parent frni the child. They are aed with every indinity; the utmost ssible quantity of labor is exacted from er, and the most meagre -fare that hu man nature can possible subsist on is do d out to support them. The slave popu ition is composed of a great variety of lasses: the decendants of those who have men taken prisoners in time of war, ersons who have been kidnapped from me neighboring States, people who have men born under such crcumstanees as at they are considered without the pale the ordinary castes; aind other who have men smuggled from the coast of A frica, ra from their country and their kindred, ad destined a more wretched lot, and, as till be seen, to a more enduring captivity man their brethren of the western world. Vill it be believed,- that Government itself articipates is this description of property; at it actually holds possession of slaves, ud lets them out for hire to the cultivators f the country, the rent of a whole family sing two fanams, or half a rupee per But why dwell on these comparatively iw slaves ? The whole of Hindostan, rith the adjacent possessions, is one mag ificent plantation, peopled by more than n hundfed millions of slaves, belonging a a ompany of- gentlemen in England, alled th e East India Company, whose ower is far more unlimited and despotic an that ofang Somthern planter over his Iave-apowbr upheld by the sword and ayoiet; exacting-more and leaving lew fa re f the nroduct of their labor to the subjoect racC itata is left undcr our own system, with much .less- regard to their comfort in sickness and age. This vast system of servitude carries with. itself the elements.of increase: nor. it is true, by the African slave trade, hut by means not f"a inhuman; that of organizing the subject race into armies, and exhausting their strength and life in reducing all around to the same state of servitude. But it may be said, that the East India Company is but a department of the Brit ish Government, through which it exerci ses its control, and holds in subjection that vast region. Be it so. I stickle not for nice distinctions. But how stands the case under this aspect? If it be contrary to the laws of nature, or nations, for man to hold man in subjection individually, is it not equally contrary for a body of men to hold another in subjection? And ifthat be true, is it not as m ch so for one nation to bold another in subjection ? If man individially has an absolute right to self government, have not men aggregated in to States. or nations, an equal right 1 If there be a difference, is not the right the more perfect in a poeple, or nation, than in the individuals who compose it? And if not the subjection ofone people to anoth er usually accompanied with, at least, as much abuse, cruelty, and oppression, as that of one individual to another? Is it possible to mark a distinction which shall justify the one and condemn the other? And if not, what right, then, I ask, has Great Britain to hold India in subjection, if it be contrary to the laws of nature, or nations, for one man to hold another in subjection? Or, what right to hold Cana da, or her numorous subject colonies, all over the blobe? Or, to come nearer to the point, in whit light'does it place her boasted abolition of slavery in the West Indies? What has she, in reality, done there but to break the comparatively.mild and guardain authority of the master, and to substitute in its place her *own direct and unlimited power? What but to replace the overseer, by the army, the sheriff, the constable, and the tax callec tor? Has she made her slaves free? Given them the right of self-government! Is it not mockery to call their present sub ject condition freedom ? What would she call it, if it were hers-if, by sotae calamity to her and the cizilized world, she should fall under similar subjection to France, or some other-power ? Would she call that feedom. or the most galling and intolerable slavery? But I approach near home. I cross the Atlantic, passing unnoticed 'subjucated Island, with her eight millions of people, and only ninety thousand voters, and pla cing myself on the boasted shores of Eng land herself, I ask, how will the principle work there ? It was estimated by Burke, ifmy memo ry serves me, shortly before the beginning of this century, that the,.British public, estimating as such all who exercised influ ence over the Government,did not exceed 200,000 individuals. Since then it has, no doubt, greatly increased by the exten sion of the right of suffrage and other causes. Say that it has trebled or quad rupled, and, to be liberal, that it amounts to seven or eight . hundred thousand. In this small portion, then,. is vested. .the.. vupro ene.emt- and Jaminian aver the twen-five millions, which constitute - the population of the Britisir isles. If, then, it be contrary to the laws of nations for man to hold man in subjection, or one na tion another, how can a small partor class ofa community hold the rest? Oron what principle, according to that maxim, can these few hundred thousand hold so. many millions? If the right of self-gov ernment forbids the subjection of one man to another, does it not equally forbid that of a small ptortion of the community over the residue?- And, if so, mustmnet the maxim terminate in the utter overthrow of the present political and social., system of Great Britain, and the rest of Europe. To be concluded in sur next. British Force in the Canadas-A para graph is going the rounds in most of our city papers, in which it is stated that the military force ins the Canadas consists of twenty thousand men. It is not so: the calculation is baced on the number of regi mentes stationed in the provinces, as it is found in a late number of the United Ser vice Journal. To make up the twenty thousand, it is estimated that the three regiments of Guards "are one thousand strong and the foot eight hundred." Now such :s not the fact. -Not .one. of the regi nments is full, and the entire force in the Canadas, we believe, is not more than thirteen thousand.-N. Y."Com Ads. Another Boundary Quetio.-T he leg islature of Ohio has passed resolutions setting forth that Great B ritian is making encroachments upon our Territoryr beyond the Rocky Mountains, and callhng upon the general government to interpose for the protection of the interests of the U. States in that quarter.-Ibid. The Indiana at Work-Our latest intelligence is, that a train of government wagl'ns, consisting of six, was captured by 12 Indians, between Forts Macomb and Banker a few days ago, and one ser geant mortally wounded. A sergeant was fired on inear Foft Pleasant, in the neigh borhood of Col. Davenport's camp, and escaped barely with his life: and also, that an Indian camp had been discovered within about four miles of Col. Robert Gamble's residence, where they had left their fires burning, and appearances which indicated that some four or five cattle had been slaughtered. These depredations have all been cotmmitted in the itmmediate vicinity of where the troops are most thick lystationed-in that portion of country which is considered as most securely guarded! How are these vagabonds to be whipped and subdued ? We ask for informatton.-Tallahassee Star, 2t&inst. Philadelphia, April d.-A letter from our correspondent at Harrisburg under date of yesterday at noon, says that the Governorhas signed the Bank Resumption Bill, and that-the other Bank Bill has just passed the House being shorn of most of its objectionable features. A large portion of the church of God in every age has been composed of the Currespondcuce of the Chadric.ion Courier. I WASXiNGroN, April 2 The Cumberland Road bill was again under consideration in the Senate to-day. Mr Gran dy proosed to reduce tie appropriation from 150,00 dolars for each ofthe States of Ohio, Indiadia, and- Illinois to 100,000 dollairs. on the ground dhat money was scarce in the Tressury and that it would be sufficient for immediat purposes. Mr.'Preston thought the same ra.! sons would justify a still further reduction, and he moved to reduce the sum one half. This was carried, 23 to 17. Mr. White, of Indiana, replied to Mr. Calhoun's argument of yester day and insisted that the Cumberland Road would be more useful than a rail raod, even if the government would aid the States in ma king one. le spoke also of the glorious des. tinies of the West, and the ibp ey of ceelk ing theircareer, Mr. Clay, of Kentucky, will speak on'the aubject to-morrow. It isdoubted whether he will support the'bill, though he hi been considered as the father of the work. A' monument has been erected to him at Wheel. ing,as the author of the toad.-' The subject of the New Jersey election was debated for an hour. Mr. Bell's bil-to prevent the interference of Government Affairs in elections was taken the question being, "shall the bill berejectetW Mr Watterson of Tennessee replied to Mr. Bell, and introduced many extraneous topics. The Pennsylvania bank bill which- is about to pass or has passed, gives great dissatisfaco'n - to the radicals, and in fact, to many moderate' conservatives. It removes all restrainis of law - for the banksofall stationary remedies--4eav' them a remedy at common law. It will greaY stren era these institutitons, and will be lowebdy an enormous expansion, sudden rise ofstocks, &c. The time ofresumption is lied for the 15th ofianuary next. The state an d Individuals will by that time be so deeply in debt to them that the suspension must be made perpetual. APrL 4. The Cumberland Road Bill has received its. quietus. The system of local and partial pp-, propriation, involved in it, is dead forever... The Sourthern members, and particularly those from South-Carolina, are much delighted 'at this result. - -' The bill came up yesterday, in the Senaie, oh its third reading. Mr. Southard spoke with much power, in opposition to it, though he has been one of its zealous and sincere advocates. He did not doubt the power of Congress to con strutt the work,'nor did he doubt its expedien cy or ultility.' That Road,he said, hasd' countless blessings not only among the - people of the West, but of the whole Union. No one' would look at the enterprize and prosperi of. that extraordinary race ofpeople who inhabited the country through it passed, without attribu ting muach of their success, to the faciliiies- af. forded them by this means of communieation between the East of West. But he had made he his mind to oppose the Bill, on account of the state of the finances of the country. The President had urged upon us econony, and even lectured us upon extravagance, Yes, this administration, that for years had expended 7-000,000 more than the whole revenue off ole country, had the impudence to lecture us uppon extravagance. The President's design' was.to throw upon Congress, the responsib'ity.of'x ceeding the estimates, though he knew that those estimates would not cover the necesary. expenditures of the country. Five millions. had already been called for to meet the deE ciency in the means of the Treasury,and he did not believe, that this would be made good by the excess of receipts in the latter half of Wbe yetir, on the contrary,we must grant five mil iions more before the end of this session. . Un der these circumstances, and with a prospect before as of a collision with England, Cecesi not vote a cent for any work not of immediait1 and pressing necessity. bfr. Clay of K., opposed the bill ot "Of entaroun. Howasand alway had6"s favor Of a national and'etdsysteM . improvements. The distribution 'of'srpe revenue amongthe*States had in pthseit this purposes and die plan of distriifng the proceeds of the public lands would complete it. Inthe meantime, he was unwiing to continue a monopoly of their benfits in the ands of the three States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. States which had opposed the Land Bill; and supported Gen. Jackson in his veto of -the Mayiville road. He could see no propriety -in . continuing to lavish vast sums on those thr States. Iftbe work was constitutional, then it would be also constitutional to cnon works on the opposite side of the river. Thre could nothbe two constitutions,-one for that 'sid.'of the Ohio river and another for this. Mr. Clay, went on and brought up an array of objections against the appropriation-not the least of wvhich, in his mind, was the extravagant yost of. the road, which could only be accounted for by. the fact that the money was used to reward par-. ty services. The bill was rejected 20 to 22. If it had passed the Senate the House would have refu sed it. Mr. Talhmadge introduced a general bank rupt L~ill of 60 sections. This plan and Mr. Webster's also are now before teCommittee on the Judiciary.-- ... The bill for the suppression of Indiana Hos-. tilities in Florida will come up on Monday and there will he a bitter oppition to it. The House has got rid, for the present, at' least, of the debateon the Jersey questios. The motion to print both report. of the Cor mitte of Elections and all thetestimony on the aubiect was passed, nem. con. -The casewill come up *about the Ist of May, on the 6inal report of e ommittee.. The Government is now suf'ering for want ofthe appropriatonbills. They have got mon ebut have no authority tonse at. Thie orders. given for the fitting out-'some vessels' for the p rotetionofour commerce, cannot he executed. How muchlongerit will suit the Heuse-tode lay these bil., remasins to be seen. Mr. Dabr-. son will probably ofebr a resolution for, the ad. jurament of Congrees early in June. Aetr. 5. ,. The Senate did not sit yesterday, and very. little businiss was done in the House. An ep portunity was of'ered, however, for the Com mittees toreport, med more than one hundied subjects were reported upon.' Mr.Cushing, f-rm the Committee on For-' eign Relations, reported a bill for the adjust ment of the claims for French Spoliations, prior.. to September, 1800. The bill allows Ave mil-. lions of dollars for distribution among the clai- . mants. The whole amount of the claim is undoubtedly a just and meritorious one, and has been favorably reported upon'a dozen times - by Committees of both Houses. But I doubt whether the claimants will ever get any thing: more than a report and bill, It was referred ter the Committee of the whole on the Union. . The feverish excitement produced by tlic late correspondence between Mr. Fox and Mr Forsyth, has subeided. Little apprehension isi now entertained of any collision between' the parties, though it is not believed that Great Britain will gave up her pretensions either iun regard to the incidental or the original question. APRrtr. 6.' The two Housss will meet; oda,-to take a" new start, in the public business. Thyhave got rid of some of the subjects, whih for. a. long time, have obstructed the public business; and they may now proceed with more facility,. -in the despatch ofnecessary Legslation.~' The tone assumed by the deleatoi fronm the. State of Maine, in regard to te' Boundafy Question, is not so fierce, nor so unreasonable as has been supposed; and that matter may pass over without any collision. It is sasil,-that Maine will agree to any fair compromnisoeofthe ,diputed tern tory;in ordter to keep up a -comn