« AnteriorContinuar »
turned to them at twelve o'clock, and told them that they were to be liberated without going before the Vice-Chancellor, upon which the v came down stairs and walked horro –An action was brought in the Court of Kings' Bench against the proctor, pro-proctor, and marshal, for false imprisonment. The University claimed their recognizance of the cause, which was allowed.--The plaintiffs, whose expeices were already to a considerable sum, were advised to drop all farther proceedings, as the cause must have been determined in the Vice Chancellor's Court, where there is no jury, and where it might have been protracted to a great length of time, and have been attend :d with much additional expence; not to mention this trifling circumstance, that the proctor himself, the very man who was one of the defendants, might have sat with the assessor, and his brothtr proctor, as one of the judges Now it must be observed that the conduct of the proctors was not only unnecessarily harsh and severe, but illegal. That this was the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, may be inferred from the circumstance of the young women being liberated, without appearing before him, who, if any thing whatever could have been proved against them, would not have dismissed them without reprimand. It would have been unjustifiable and illegal, even if the young women had been common prostitutes, for they had been guilty of no ill-behaviour, and the pro-proctor interposed his authority, at a time of day, when he had no power of exerting it except on matriculated persons. Punishment, in this case, if inflicted at all, should have becn inflicted on the gownsmen; but they were allowed to escape with impunity.—Instances similar to the above, I have reason to think, have frequently occurred, though the individuals who suffered had no opportunity of bringing their cases before the public; a circumstance that will not be wondered at, when it is considered that aggressions of this nature are generally committed against persons who cannot take any expensive measures to obtain redress, as by their own situation or that of their relations and friends, they are more or less dependent on the University, and to whom any resistance or opposition to those members of it who are clothed with .
authority, might be very detrimental.
and perhaps ruindus in its consequences.
FREEDOM of SPEECH.
SIR, Knowing that you as much despise panegyric, as I do the panegyrist, it is not in y intention to pass fulsome com pliments, but merely to shew to the world what happy effects are produced by the perseverance of plain truth.The fact is, your plain arguments have greatly tended to convert an educated man, and an original enemy to your Register.—From my intimacy and friendship with him, I have constantly sent it him to read. Sometimes he would, and sometimes he would not look at it. Time, the tryer of all things, as your correspondent on Religious Persecution says, eradicated that rancour, and curiosity predominating, led him occasionally to look it over, till at last conviction got the better of his prejudice, and I am happy to state, that we are now as united in politics as we are sincere in friendship.–The wonder working effects of your uncontaminated reasoning is also proved in your forcing a rebut from Sir J. C. Hippisley, to your animadversions on the abominable Times Newspaper report of what you justly censured as an impropriety in Sir John's (supposed) illiberal and ungentlemanly attack on Mr. Madison, the President of the only free country in the world. I cordially participate with you when you say, “you cannot “help wishing that a respectable English “gentleman had refrained from the use “of a phrase fit to be applied only to “the head and members of a government “of a very different description.” I could have wished that you had named the government, but I have a pretty good key to this when I look to your extracts from a Pamphlet written by Mr. Thorpe, the Chief Justice of the Colony of Sierra Leone, (on the subject of the slave trade) to Mr. Wilberforce, a sanctified member of parliament, a suppressor of vice ; a good old man, who would rather die than be deprived of the pleasure and power of cramming Bibles
down our throats.-Sir J. C. Hippisley, or the Times, may say that they hate the Americans if they please; that will do the Americans no harm. I like candour; therefore it should be allowed every one, with the same candour, to speak the truth. Then it might be truly said that we live in as free a country as America.-According to the sense our Big Wigs have given to the word libel (namely the greater the truth the greater the libel) Sir J. C. Hippisley was certainly correct when he said, that Mr. Hunt was libelling our own country. We must therefore take it for granted that Sir John's admits the truth of Mr. Hunt's assertion, “that the Americans “are the only remaining free people in “the world.” Here I certainly would have been on Sir John's side of the question. —At the same time, I should have made it distinctly understood, that it was because I considered Mr. Hunt's assertion to be the truth, call it what you may.— Possibly Sir John thinks gagging a part of our boasted liberty. But it is my misfortune 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 we have derived all human blessings 3 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 benefitted by the rights of nature than the brute creation.
, AMERICAN DocLMENTS.
ral position, that it was consistent with the principles of public law, and with the practice of civilized nations, to include allies in a treaty of peace, and to provide for their security, never was called in question by the understood : but they have been denied the right of Grea: ,, aio. according to those principles and her ow: ; c. to interfere in any manner with Indian to ; : siding within the territories of the United State, as acknowledged by herself, to consider so, toas her allies, or to treat for them with the hitta States. They will not repeat the facts and aroments already brought forward by then in , p. port of this position, and which remained unanswered. The observations inade by the British Plenipotentiaries upon the treaty of Grenville, and their assertion, that the United States now, for the first time, deny the absolute independence of the Indian tribes, and claim the exclusive right of purchasing their lands, require, however, notice.
Continued from page 224. *:ay be permitted to add, that even if the chances of war should yield to the British arms a momentary 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 aban
donment of any one of the tights which constitute a part of W ~ir national independence. The gene
Sotire If the United States had now asserted, that the Indians within their boundaries, who have acknowledged the United States as their only protectors, were their subjects, Irving only at surferance on their lands, far from being the first in making that assertion, they would only have solowed the example of the principles uniformly 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 doininion 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 inde
| pendent 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 proclamation 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 hidians 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 dr 6:eat Britain with other European Powers having Annerican possessions, particularly in the treaty of 1763, by which she-aequired--from. France ...he sovereignty and possession of the Canadas—in her treaty of peace with the United States in 1793?--
with the Treaty of Grenville. These principles have been uniformly recognised by the Indians thenselves, not only by that treaty, but in all the other previous as well as subsequent treaties between then 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 umiversally 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 undersign d will not dwell on the immense inequality of value between the two territories, which, under such an arrangement, would be assigned, by each nation, respectively, to the Indians, and which alone would make the 1eciprocity 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 particularly 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 persect wilderness, to be for ever inhabited by scattered tribes of hunters; but it would inflict 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 pro-so tection of Great Britain, dooming them to perpetual", * *
barbarism, and leaving an extensive frontier. for ever exposed to their savage incursions,
Signed as before.
nay, what is the no or of the north western boun-
against the royal proclamations,
From the rigour of this system
England, and the founder of Pennsylvania, in having purchased of the Indians the lands they resolved to cultivate, not withstanding 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 anicable treaties between the United States and themselves; and that whenever those boundaries are 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 right 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
: Printed and Published by G, Housto N: No. 192, Stran Editor are requested to
* * * * *
fo. all communication, addressed to the * be
This meeting which was convened by advertisement, under the HIGH SH ERIFF, was the most numerous of any that had ever been witnessed in the County. The Sheriff opened the proceedings in the Council Chamber of the City, but, it being found, that the open air was the only proper place to afford a chance of hearing to such an immense assembly, an adjournment took place to the square in the front of the Council House.--Here, after the requsition had been read, the Resolution, and after it the Petition (which will be found below) were moved by Mr. Hunt and seconded by Mir. Cobbett of Botley, who having a freehold in Wiltshire was induced to take part in a discussion, in which every man in the kingdom is interested. —Whatever might have been the wishes, or the expectations, of the friends of Corruption, they were not here gratified by witnessing any attempts to work up the passions and prejudices of the people into that flame of violence, which, unhappily, has burst forth in the metropolis, and which it is the duty of every man to discourage, and to prevent, if he has it in his power. —Mr. Hunt gave early proof of his desire to discharge this duty and of the weight which a man may have with the people, if he proceed in the right way. —There were carried into the Council Chamber, upon the tops of two iong poles, a large loaf decorated with gay ribbons, and a small loaf arrayed in crape. Mr. Hunt requested, that those loaves (the sight of which was so well calculated 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 they
the authority of
Vol. XXVII. No. 10.] LGN DON, SATURI)AY, MARCH 11, 1815. [Price 1.
smallest, was mede to inflame, or to misHead; 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 comr plete success, to make the vast assemblage clearly, understand, that the proposition to make corn dear had grown out of the desire to continue to raise war taxes upon the farmer; that this desire had grown out of the immense expenditure still intended to be kept up ; and that this immense expenditure had grown out of those measures; which would have | been all prevented by a Reform in the Commons' House of Parliament.—It was explained to the people, that the owners of land and growers of corn would not gain, in the end, by a Corn Bill, which, in fact, was intended to enable them to pay war-tares in time of peace, though some of them had been evi e by the selfish notion of gain to themselves. It was explained to the Meeting, that the inevitable effect of the Bill would be to enhance and uphold the price of corn; or, in other words, that it would impose a new tax upon the loaf, and that, too, without any ultimate benefit to the landlord or tenant, however some of these might think the contrary.—In adverting to the Wiltshire Petition for a Corn Bill, it was observed, that the Petitioners had said, that they had long borne heavy taxes, AND THAT THEY WERESTILL WILLING TO BEAR HEAVY TAXES, provided the Government and Parliament would pass a law, the effect of which should be TO RAISE AND KEE? UP THE PRICE OF THEER CORN. That is to say, that so long as they could have a price, which should be a protection to them against ruin; they did not care how heavily the loaf was taxed, how much money was squaudered away, how large a standing army was kept up in time of peace, nor how the loberties and rights of the people were dealt with,
It was explained to* meeting, that, in
rise in price of provisions; ot, that now,
when provisions had failers, 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 ailowances, and, as these taxes could not be raised while corn w;s cheap, it was intended to make eorn &ar in order to enable the landiórd 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, to the NONSENSE, of the people. The conduct
of the High Sieriff was remarkably proper.
His priyate opinion opeared to lean towards a Corn Bill ; but, so inpartial, and, indeed, so alle, was the manlier, in which he couducted the husiness of the day, and so readily did he assent to what was manifestly the unanimous wish of the Miceting, that he re
tired amidst the applauses of all descript
tions of persons.—'I he conduct of the People was equally good. Not a word of violence: not a word of folly. A night, some boys paraded a thing, stified with straw, supposed to represent some contemptible triend of the Corn Hill. They harged and beheaded this personage, opposite Mr. Hunt's lodging; and there even this fun ended. W i.en this
RFso I'v Ep, That political corruption, after having exhausted all the other sources of taxation, has, at fast, proeeded to the outrageous length of attopting to burthen with a heavy tax, the very bread that we cat, being thereitute torged and encouraged by the false statements of certain rapācious 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 stifiering nation, in such a manner as to prevent the enacting of any law, to prol.iłit, or restrain, the free importation of corn.
R.E.801 v Er, 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. t
Rosol.x ro, That when signed, the sheriff do transmit the petition to the Earl Stanhope, and request his Lordship to present the same to the House of Lords.
R Esolv Ep, That the Sheriff be requested to sign the resolutions, and to publish then in the Salisbury and Winchester Journal, and in two Lon
don morning and two london evening Newspapers.
REso Lv ED, That the thanks of this Meeting be given to the ligh Sheriff of the county, for his readiness in calling this Meeting, and for his inpartial conduct in the chair.