to females, as it may be the means of subjecting their characters, however pure, to uncharitable remarks, and illnatured surmises.

Orford, Feb. 18. 1815.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

SIR, Knowing that you as much despise panegyric, as I do the panegyrist, it is not my intention to pass fulsome com pliments, but merely to shew to the world what happy effects are produced

bv

turned to them at twelve o'clock, and and perhaps ruinous in its consequences. told them that they were to be liberated To which may be added, that publicity, without going before the Vice-Chancellor, in those cases, is extremely unpleasant upon which they came down stairs and walked hom-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 expences 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 atten- the perseverance of plain truth.ded with much additional expence; not The fact is, your plain arguments have to mention this trifling circumstance, greatly tended to convert an educated that the proctor himself, the very man man, and an original enemy to your Rewho was one of the defendants, might gister.-From my intimacy and friendhave sat with the assessor, and his bro- ship with him, I have constantly sent ther proctor, as one of the judges! Now it him to read. Sometimes he would, and it must be observed that the conduct of sometimes he would not look at it. the proctors was not only unnecessarily Time, the tryer of all things, as your corharsh and severe, but illegal. That this respondent on Religious Persecution was the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor, says, eradicated that rancour, and curimay be inferred from the circumstance osity predominating, led him occasion of the young women being liberated, ally to look it over, till at last conviction without appearing before him, who, if got the better of his prejudice, and I am any thing whatever could have been pro- happy to state, that we are now as unitved against them, would not have dis- ed in politics as we are sincere in missed them without reprimand. It friendship.-The wonder working effects would have been unjustifiable and illegal, of your uncontaminated reasoning is also even if the young women had been com- proved in your forcing a rebut from Sir mon prostitutes, for they had been guilty J. C. Hippisley, to your animadversions of no ill-behaviour, and the pro-proctor on the abominable Times Newspaper interposed his authority, at a time of day, report of what you justly censured as an when he had no power of exerting it ex-impropriety in Sir John's (supposed) illicept on matriculated persons. Punish-beral and ungentlemanly attack on Mr. ment, in this case, if infiicted at all, Madison, the President of the only free should have been inflicted on the gowns-country in the world. I cordially particimen; but they were allowed to escape pate with you when you say, "you cannot with impunity.Instances similar to the "help wishing that a respectable English above, I have reason to think, have fre- gentleman had refrained from the use quently occurred, though the individu-" of a phrase fit to be applied only to als who suffered had no opportunity of "the head and members of a government bringing their cases before the public;" of a very different description." I could a circumstance that will not be wonder- have wished that you had named the ed at, when it is considered that aggres-government, but I have a pretty good sions of this nature are generally commit- key to this when I look to your extracts ted 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

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

ral position, that it was consistent with the prin
ciples of public law, and with the practice of ci-
vilized nations, to include allies in a treaty of
peace, and to provide for their security, never
was called in question by the undersigned: but
they have been denied the right of Great Be` ain,
according to those principles and her own p
to interfere in any manner with Indian tube ;**
siding within the territories of the United States,
as acknowledged by herself, to consider such tribes
as her allies, or to treat for them with the United
States. They will not repeat the facts and argu-

sonre

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.ments already brought forward by them in spHunt 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? 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. I am, &c. W. P. R.

port of this position, and which remained unanswered. The observations made 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. 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, living only at sufferance on their lands, far from being the first in making that assertion, they would only have followed 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 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 Continued from page 224, may be permitted to add, that even if the chances licence of the British King, were the rightful-lords of the lands where he granted them permission of war should yield to the British arms a momentary possession of other parts of the territory of to live? What was the meaning of that procla the United States, such events would not alter their | mation of his present Britannic Majesty, issued in views with regard to the terms of peace to which 1763, declaring all purchases of lands null and they would give their consent. Without recurring void, unless made by treaties held under the sanction to examples drawn from the Revolutionary Govern- of his Majesty's Government, if the Indians had ments of France, or to a more recent and illus- the right to sell their lands to whom they pleased the meaning of boundary lines of trious triumph of fortitude in adversity, they What was American territories, in all the treaties of Great have been taught by their own history that the ocBritain with other European Powers having Amecupation of their principal cities would produce no despondency, nor induce their submission to the rican possessions, particularly in the treaty of dismemberment of their empire, or to the aban-17 63, by which she acquired-from. France he donment of any one of the rights which constitute sovereignty and possession of the Canadas-in her a part of Weir national independence. The gene- treaty of peace with the United States in 1723?--

AMERICAN DOCUMENTS.

nay, what is the me pin of the north western boundary line now proposed by the British Commissioners themselves, if it is the rightful possession and sovereignty of independent Indians, of which these boundaries dispose? Is it indeed necessary to ask, whether Great Britain ever has permitted, or would permit, any foreign nation, or without he consent, any of her subjects, to acquire landslands within the jurisdiction of the United States from the Indians, in the territories of the Hudson Bay, 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 solemn 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 celebrated 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 amicable treaties between the United States and themselves; 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

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

and that whenever those boundaries are

to foreign Governments or subjects, nor ceded to
them the right of exercising exclusive jurisdiction
within the boundary line assigned. It was mere-
ly declaratory of the public law, in relation to the
parties, founded on principles previously and uni-
versally 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, by
each nation, respectively, to 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 terri-
tories. 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 per-
fect wilderness, to be for ever inhabited by scattered
tribes of banters; 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-
tection 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 forvarded.

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

289]

CORN BILL.

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

1815.

[290

smallest, was made to inflame, or to mis lead; 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 plete success, to make the vast assem blage clearly understand, that the propo sition to make corn dear had grown out of the desire to continue to raise war

This meeting, which was convened by advertisement, under the authority of theHIGHSHERIFF was the most numerous of any that had ever been witnessed in the 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 selfish notion 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 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 long 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 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

said, that they had long borne heavy taxes, AND THAT THEY WERE STILL WILLING TO BEAR HEAVY TAXES, provided the Government and Parliament would pass a law, the effect of which should be TO RAISE AND KEEP UP THE PRICE OF THEIR CORN. That is to say, that so long as they could have a price, which should be a protec

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 Fberties 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; thời hay caght, ex the contrary, to have cared for a reduction of th 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; gut, 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 corn dar 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, to 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 descrip tions 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

RESOLVED, That political corruption,
after having exhausted all the other
sources of taxation, bas, at last, pro-
ceeded to the outrageous length of at-
tempting to burthen with a heavy tax,
the very bread that we eat, being
thereunto urged and encouraged by
the false statements of certain rapa-
cious Landowners; that, therefore,
a petition be presented to the House
of Lords, praying their Lordships to
interposé 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 re-
quested 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 She-
riff do transmit the petition to the
Earl Stanhope, and request his Lord-
ship 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 Meeting be given to the High Sheriff of the county, for his readiness in calling this Meeting, and for his impartial conduct in the chair,