Edgefield advertiser. (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, April 16, 1840, Image 2
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