Page images
PDF
EPUB

down our throats.-Sir J. C. Hippis- ral position, that it was consistent with the prinley, or the Times, may say that they hate ciples of public law, and with the practice of dis the Americans if they please; that willvilized nations, to include allies in a treaty of do the Americans no harm. I like can- peace, and to provide for their security, never dour; therefore it should be allowed was called in question by the undersigned: but every one, with the same candour, to they have been denied the right of Great Britain, speak the truth. Then it might be truly according to those principles and her own practice, said that we live in as free a country as to interfere in any manner with Indian tribes reAmerica. According to the sense our siding within the territories of the United States, Big Wigs have given to the word libel | as acknowledged by herself, to consider such tribes (namely the greater the truth the greater as her allies, or to treat for them with the United the libel) Sir J. C. Hippisley was cer- States. They will not repeat the facts and argu• tainly correct when he said, that Mr.ments already brought forward by them in supHunt was libelling our own country.port of this position, and which remained unanWe must therefore take it for granted swered. The observations made by the British that Sir John's admits the truth of Mr. Plenipotentiaries upon the treaty of Grenville, and Hunt's assertion," that the Americans their assertion, that the United States now, for the are the only remaining free people in first time, deny the absolute independence of the "the world." Here I certainly would have Indian tribes, and claim the exclusive right of bees on Sir John's side of the question. purchasing their lands, require, however, -At the same time, I should have made notice. If the United States had now asserted, it distinctly understood, that it was be- that the Indians within their boundaries, who have cause I considered Mr. Hunt's assertion acknowledged the United States as their only to be the truth, call it what you may.- protectors, were their subjects, living only at sutPossibly Sir John thinks gagging a part ferance on their lands, far from being the first of our boasted liberty. But it is my mis-in making that assertion, they would only have folfortune not to consider any country free, or enjoying the blessings of nature, that is deprived of the liberty of speech.What constitutes genuine freedom? Is it not the liberty of speaking and speaking the truth, the source from which have derived all human blessings? When, therefore, we punish or censure others for exercising this faculty, we render it a curse instead of a blessing; we are, in that case, less benefited by the rights of nature than the brute creation, I am, &c. W. P. R.

AMERICAN DOCUMENTS.

we

Continued from page 221. may be permitted to add, that even if the chances of war should yield to the British arms a momentery possession of other parts of the territory of the United States, such events would not alter their views with regard to the terms of peace to which they would give their consent. Without recurring to examples drawn from the Revolutionary Governments of France, or to a more recent and illustrious triumph of fortitude in adversity, they have been taught by their own history that the occupation of their principal cities would produce no despondency, nor induce their submission to the dismemberment of their empire, or to the abandonment of any oue of the rights which constitute a part of their national independence. The gene

some

lowed the example of the principles unitonaly and invariably asserted in substance, and frequently

avowed in express terms, by the British Government itself. What was the meaning of all the colonial charters granted by the British Monarchy, from that of Virginia, by Elizabeth, to that of Georgia, by the immediate predecessor of the present King, if the Indians were the Sovereigns and proprietors of the lands bestowed by those charters? What was the meaning of that article in the Treaty of Utrecht, by which the Five Nations were described in terms as subject to the dominion of Great Britain? or that of the treaty with the Cherokees, by which it was declared that the King of Great Britain granted them the privilege to live where they pleased, if those subjects were independent sovereigns, and if these tenants at the licence of the British King, were the rightful lords of the lands where he granted them permission to live? What was the meaning of that procla mation of his present Britannic Majesty, issued in 1763, declaring all purchases of lands null and void, unless made by treaties held under the sanction of his Majesty's Government, if the Indians had the right to sell their lands to whom they pleased? What was the meaning of boundary lines of American territories, in all the treaties of Great Britain with other European Powers having American possessions, particularly in the treaty of 17 63, by which she acquired from France the sovereignty and possession of the Canadas-in her treaty of peace with the United States in 1783?--

nay, what is the meaning of the north western bounday line now proposed by the British Commissioners themselves, if it is the rightful possession and sovereignty of independent Indians, of which ti se boundaries dispose? Is it indeed necessary to ask, whether Great Britain ever has permitted, or would permit, any foreign nation, or without her consent, any of her subjects, to acquire lands from the Indians, in the territories of the Hudson Pay Company or in Canada? In formally protesting against this system, it is not against a novel pretension of the American Government--it is against the most solema acts of their own sovereigns, | against the royal proclamations, charters, and treaties of Great Britain for more than two centuries, from the first settlement of North America to the present day that the British Plenipotentiaries protest. From the rigour of this system however, as practised by Great Britain and all the other European Powers in America, the humane and liberal policy of the United States has | voluntarily relaxed. A cclebrated writer on the laws of nations, to whose authority British jurists have taken particular satisfaction in appealing, after stating, in the most explicit manner, the legitimacy of colonial settlements in America, the exclusion of all rights of uncivilised Indian tribes, has taken occasion to praise the first settlers of New England, and the founder of Pennsylvania, in having purchased of the Indians the lands they resolved to cultivate, notwithstanding their being furnished with a charter from their sovereign. It is this example which the United States, since they became by their independence the sovereigns of the territory, have adopted and organised into a political system. Under that system the Indians residing within the United States, are so far independent, that they live under their own customs, and not ↑ under the laws of the United States; that their rights upon the lands where they inhabit or hunt | are secured to them by boundaries defined in amicall: heaties between the United States and themstives; and that whenever those boundaries varied, it is also by amicable and voluntary treaties by which they receive from the United States ample compensation for every right they have to the lands ceded by them. They are so far dependent as not to have the night to dispose of their lands to any private persons, nor to any power, other than the United States, and to be under their protection alone, and not under that of any other power, Whether called subjects, or by whatever name designated, such is the relation between them and the United States. That relation is neither asserted now for the first time, nor did it originate

are

with the Treaty of Grenville. These principles have been uniformly recognised by the Indians themselves, not only by that treaty, but in all the other previous as well as subsequent treaties between them and the United States.

The Treaty of Grenville neither took from the Indians the right, which they had not, of selling lands within the jurisdiction of the United States to foreign Governments or subjects, nor ceded to them the right of exercising exclusive jurisdiction within the boundary line assigned. It was merely declaratory of the public law, in relation to the parties, founded on principles previously and univeisally recognised. It left to the United States the rights of exercising sovereignty and of acquiring soil, and bears no analogy to the proposition of Great Britain which requires the abandonment of both. The British Plenipotentiaries state in their last Note, that Great Britain is ready to enter into the same engagement with respect to the Indians living within their lines of demarcation, as that which is proposed to the United States. The undersigned will not dwell on the immense inequa lity of value between the two territories, which, under such an arrangement, would be assigned, ty each nation, respectively, fo the Indians, and which alone would make the reciprocity merely nominal. The condition which would thus be imposed on Great Britain not to acquire lands in Canada from the Indians, would be productive of no advantage to the United States, and is, therefore, no equivalent for the sacrifice required of them. They do not consider that it belongs to the United States, in any respect to interfere with the concerns of Great Britain in her American possessions, or with her policy towards the Indians residing there; and they cannot consent to any interference, on the part of Great Britain, with their own concerns, and par ticularly with the Indians living within their territories. It may be the interest of Great Britain to limit her settlements in Canada, to their present extent, and to leave the country to the west a perfect wilderness, to be for ever inhabited by scattered tribes of hunters; but it would infiict a vital injury on the United States to have a line run through their territory, beyond which their settlements should for ever be precluded from extending, thereby arresting the natural growth of their population and strength; placing the Indians substantially, by virtue of the proposed guarantee, under the protection of Great Britain, dooming them to perpetual barbarism, and leaving an extensive frontier for ever exposed to their savage incursions.

Signed as before.

Printed and Published by G. HousTON: No. 192, Strand; where all Communications addressed to the Editor are requested to be forwarded.

VOL XXVII. No. 10.] LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 11, 1815. [Price 1s

269]

CORN BILL.

WILTSHIRE COUNTY-MEETING, Held at Salisbury, on the 8th of March,

1815.

[290

[ocr errors]

smallest, was made to inflame, or to mislead; no attempt to mark out any particular class for popular resentment; no attempt to stir up the labourer to cut the throat, or to set fire to the house or barns of his employer; but, many endeavours were used, and it is believed, with com This meeting, which was convened by plete success, to make the vast assem advertisement, under the authority of blage clearly understand, that the propo the HIGHSHERIFF was the most numerous sition to make corn dear had grown out of any that had ever been witnessed in the of the desire to continue to raise war County. The Sheriff opened the proceed- taxes upon the farmer; that this desire had ings in the Council Chamber of the City, grown out of the immense expenditure but, it being found, that the open air was still intended to be kept up; and that the only proper place to afford a chance this immense expenditure had grown out of hearing to such an immense assembly, of those measures; which would have an adjournment took place to the square been all prevented by a Reform in the in the front of the Council House.-Here, Commons' House of Parliament.-It was after the requsition had been read, the explained to the people, that the owners Resolution, and after it the Petition of land and growers of corn would, not (which will be found below) were moved [ gain, in the end, by a Corn Bill, which, by Mr. Hunt and seconded by Mr. in fact, was intended to enable them to Cobbett of Botley, who having a free-pay war-taxes in time of peace, though hold in Wiltshire was induced to take some of them had been evidently actuated part in a discussion, in which every man by the selfishnotion of gain to themselves. in the kingdom is interested. Whatever It was explained to the Meeting, that the might have been the wishes, or the ex- inevitable effect of the Bill would be to pectations, of the friends of Corruption, enhance and uphold the price of corn; they were not here gratified by witness- or, in other words, that it would impose ing any attempts to work up the passions a new tax upon the loaf, and that, too, and prejudices of the people into that without any ultimate benefit to the landflame of violence, which, unhappily, has lord or tenant, however some of these burst forth in the metropolis, and which might think the contrary. In adverting it is the duty of every man to discourage, to the Wiltshire Petition for a Corn Bill, and to prevent, if he has it in his power. it was observed, that the Petitioners had -Mr. Hunt gave early proof of his de- said, that they had long borne heavy sire to discharge this duty and of the taxes, AND THAT THEY WERE STILL weight which a man may have with the WILLING TO BEAR HEAVY TAXES, people, if he proceed in the right way. provided the Government and Parliament -There were carried into the Council would pass a law, the effect of which Chamber, upon the tops of two long should be TO RAISE AND KEEP poles, a large loaf decorated with gay UP THE PRICE OF THEIR CORN. ribbons, and a small loaf arrayed in crape. That is to say, that so long as they could Mr. Hunt requested, that those loaves have a price, which should be a prote (the sight of which was so well calculation to them against ruin, they did not ted to inflame) should be taken away. They instantly were taken away, and never again made their appearance. To give any thing like a report of speeches here will not be attempted. But, it is right to observe, that no attempt, not even the

care how heavily the loaf was taxed, how much money was squandered away, how large a standing army was kept up in time of peace, nor how the liberties and rights of the people were dealt with. It was explained to the meeting, that, in

K

this the petitioners for a Corn Bill were wrong; that they ought, on the contrary, to have called for a reduction of the taxes, without which the immense standing army could not be kept up in time of peace; and, being relieved from those taxes, they might well afford to sell their corn as cheap as any that could be brought from abroad. It was observed to the meeting, that, in consequence of the price of provisions having fallen, it was notorious, that the price of labour had fallen; that the farmer now, and very justly, paid less to his people than he paid before, including his smith, wheelwright, collar-maker, &c. But, that the meeting should well remark, and bear in mind, that those who are paid by the public still receive undiminished salaries and allowances; that, during the last twenty years, the allowances to the Royal Family, to the Judges, to the Police Magistrates, to public Officers of all descriptions, had been greatly augmented upon the express ground of the rise in price of provisions; but, that now, when provisions had fallen, and brought down with them the wages of the labourer, none of these allowances were lowered; on the contrary war taxes were to be kept up, for the purpose, in part, of keeping up those allowances, and, as these taxes could not be raised while corn was cheap, it was intended to make Born dear in order to enable the landlord and farmer to pay taxes. Thus was the abhorred measure traced fairly to its source, and an appeal was made to the SENSE, and not, as in some other cases that have occurred, o the NONSENSE, of the people.The conduct of the High Sheriff was remarkably proper. His private opinion appeared to lean towards a Corn Bill; but, so impartial, and, indeed, so able, was the manner, in which he conducted the business of the day, and so readily did he assent to what was manifestly the unanimous wish of the Meeting, that he retired amidst the applauses of all descriptions of persons.-The conduct of the People was equally good. Not a word of violence: not a word of folly. At night, some boys paraded a thing, stuffed with straw, supposed to represent some contemptible friend of the Corn Bill. They hanged and beheaded this personage, opposite Mr. Hunt's lodging; and there even this fun ended. When this

account was sent away the Petition hed been signed by some thousands of persons, and it is expected to be before the House of Lords in the course of next week.--The following are copies of the Resolutions and Petition.

WILTS COUNTY MEETING.

RESOLUTIONS

Unanimously agreed to by the most nu

merous Assemblage ever witnessed in the city of New Sarum, on Wednes day, March 8, 1815.

GEORGE EYRE, Esq. Sheriff, in the chair.

RESOLVED, That political corruption, after having exhausted all the other sources of taxation, has, at last, proceeded to the outrageous length of attempting to burthen with a heavy tax, the

very bread that we eat, being thereunto urged and encouraged by the false statements of certain rapacious Landowners; that, therefore, a petition be presented to the House of Lords, praying their Lordships to interpose in behalf of this long insulted, and long suffering nation, in such a manner as to prevent the enacting of. any law, to prohibit, or restrain, the free importation of corn.

RESOLVED, That the Sheriff be requested to sign the petition, and that copies of it be sent for signatures to the various towns in the county. RESOLVED, That when signed, the Sheriff do transmit the petition to the Eari Stanhope, and request his Lordship to present the same to the House of Lords.

RESOLVED, That the Sheriff be requested to sign the resolutions, and to publish them in the Salisbury and Winchester Journal, and in two London morning and two London evening Newspapers.

RESOLVED, That the thanks of this Mecting be given to the High Sheriff of the county, for his readiness in calling this Meeting, and for his impartial conduct in the chair.

To the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled.

000

The Petition of the Freeholders, Landholders, Tradesmen, Manufacturers, and Inhabitants of the County of Wilts, in County Meeting assembled,

HUMBLY SHEWETH,

That your Petitioners, at the moment when they were justified in expecting to enter on the Enjoyments of the Blessings, usually attendant on Peace, to which they had so long been Strangers, perceive, with the deepest Sorrow, that Attempts are making to prolong and perpetuate the Sufferings of War, by enhancing and upholding the Price of Corn.

That your Petitioners, seeing, in other Quarters, political Corruption and private Bapacity so firmly and resolutely leagued against them, fly with Confidence for Protection to your Lordships, and appeal to your Noble-Mindedness, your Justice, your Humanity, against the Machinations and Violence of this unfeeling, this merciless League.

Your Petitioners, therefore, humbly pray, that your Lordships will reject any Proposition that may be made to you to entertain any Bill, or other Measure, tending to diminish, or restrain the Importation of Cora.

&c.

And your Petitioners shall ever pray,

CHEAP CORN.

66

Aristides' statement is incorrect. It is not, however, of much consequence whether is letter contain sentiments which have been delivered before, or not; but whether these sentiments be right or wreng, of which neither Aristides, myself, or any body else, can determine any further than our own several opinions 30. But Aristides is not willing to allow any body the credit of writing their true sentiments. He charges them with vie ing with each other which shall best elude the true state of the case;" or, in other words, which can deceive the public most. Is not this illiberal; very illiberal? Perhaps it was a slip of the pen while his indignation rose against Landlords and Farmers, who are now amassing so much wealth. I hope, whatever I write, he will at least allow me to be sincere when I say, that all our dear bread derived its scurce from WAR, the cause of all our tion must cease also, or ruin and the fear TAXES; and now War has ceased, Taxaof a jail will drive numbers of people to some land where they can work without a tax-gatherer taking the greatest part of their property, and where they can farm without being obliged to relinquish a tenth of their produce.-Aristides states, that he has found one who has hinted at "the real cause of the evil." He says, "since this person's lease has expired, his landlord has doubled his rent:" but he has not told us when this case was granted; whether in the cheap or in the dear times, or why the landlord thought of doubling the rent. He has also forgotten to state the comparison of the quantum of taxes paid, and housekeeping expenses, &c. in the year the lease was granted, and that in which it expired. These particulars are certainly very ma

Mr. COBRETT.-In perusing your va-terial to be known, as a criterion to enaluable Register last week, I saw in it a ble us to judge whether the landlord letter entitled " Cheap Corn," which, wanted a double income or not. with your permission, I would offer a few tides lays great stress on manylittle farms Arisremarks on, and put a few queries to the being consolidated into one. writer, Aristides. He begins with stating, so general as he states, although it will This is not that he "sets his face against all that has be more so soon; for now that a prison "been said or written on the subject." stares the little farmer in the face, and But if he were to ask Mr. Whitbread, if has stared some of them out of countehe had ever made, at a public meeting, nance, as any one may see by looking similar declarations as to the manner of over his own parish, and observing the farmers' living, I believe he would answer in the affirmative. If he were to of labourers, the consequence of oppres increase of paupers caused by an influx ask Mr. Hunt, if he had ever spoken sive taxation. So far Aristides' statement against high rents, he would give the is true, when he says, that "they are same answer. Now, Sir, if this be true," either working as day labourers, or

K 2

« PreviousContinue »