Star. — London, England, 1824-11-23 00:00:00

V 110 .1 0 .9 4 .5" 41 5 : 415) 3 1ii!!1! il li. 011 ti bale , CO aa fp 0 .• fti db 0 S ZSgoto -4 .• wo r C 1 0 00100 0 010- 10 .1000. 4. Cis Ch Od C) CI GO WI GO ....4 - «. .4 e l: ......-1 I I tO to tal ...2 I 1 " - I. 1010.. k. . C 0 I r tyi. w PP W ablEBlltLit —"-i 131: lot b ' ••• a • r •••11 40 GO 0 J fi eF :::60 t 0 ••11 : 1 ..... a • •-• P WEST Mbii SLAVERY.. LETTRR IX. TO THE EDITOR OF THE STAR. Sta—Although I cannot fiat . feel confident thatb to bnpfejediced minds, my previous letters on the Hai tian document must be held to be more than sttfficient to vindicate the Reviewer against the principal charges of AxoLul, still there remain some of his assertions which I have not yet been able to notice, and which so easily admit of ample refutation, that I cannot but in dulge the hope, that one more Lette- on this branch of the. controversy may not prove unacceptable to my Readers. As an easy reference to the Haitian document will teed to render mote intelligible the remarks which I shall have occasion to make, I have taken the following copy of it from the British and Colonial Weekly Re gister of 25th September, 1824, the Editor of which Journal has stated that his copy was transetibed from the original, nod which, in another place, he says was in the hand-writing of M. login= t r Ir. 1 lEv 4 1 li I i si _s 1 8.-2.31 H I 0 ":11 , .4 lllb .55% SSSSS34roc. Quiltitk do Badman. ►a 0 P H 4. -+ ▪ oit as • bit 8 - - .41; • • r I:IVO. PPPPO w>?'?' 'soya t J rillefa§ '`'.l 5 4 . rob CSC du OD im alp -4 NO OS * 4 NO 14* 0 rdhow PP. 4 5 0 ; weal/Walt II C 4 gp a. ach eo a • GA .4 44 V) 4, el era ca g: re fl 4) CV 0 0 . 54 0...1_0 r$ F. ' r p, the fol ade : In page 573 of the last Qmarterly A. towing remarks on the trade of Haiti were "In the letter from M. Inginac to his anonymous Correspondent, he says, that the cotnmerce of Haiti is increasing, and • that the quantity 'of coffee pro duced in 1823, will be a third mori'than 1822." " As Great Britain and the United States are repre sented by the Haitian documents to be the greatest importers of coffee, the returns of these countries ought to shew this increase." "In 1822, 'Great Britain imported from Haiti 41,632 cwt. or 4,662,784 lbs. in weight, which the Hairian document gives as being 13,548,591 dollars in value—an 'obvious mistake, for both statements cannot be correct. Taking the smaller quantity as being most favourable to M. Inginac's accuracy, by adding one-third to it, ive have 6,217,045 lbs. weight which Great Britain ought to have imported from Haiti in 182$ instead'of which, the official documents laid before Parliament chew that only 44,422 cwt. or 4,952,864 tbs. of coffee was received from Haiti." in 'reply to these remarks, ANGLUS has made the fol lowing assertions 44 The Reviewer reprpsents the document as having stated that 13,548,591 e osnds weight of coffee was actually imported into Great Britain in 1822, whereas the document only states that hi that year, that qUan tity was exported from Haiti in ships belonging to Great Britain." This is inerb asiertiois, which AiseLos has not at tempted to support by any evidence whatever: and it difficult to imagine how any person who had looked aver the returns, could entertain a supposition, much less make a public assertion, so obviously at variance with the fset. Ou referring to the document, it • will be seen that he words " Grande Bretagne" are at the beginning of the line in which the quantity of coffee mentioned by ANGLUS is entered. The Reviewer then conceived these vords to designate that the coffee was exported to, or leared but for this country in the first instance; and Auctus imagines that the coffee was Merely exported from Haiti io British ships. Now, if the supposition of AwoLus, with respect to. the import of the words r' Grande Bretagne," were cot 'ea, it would follow that the words " Etit Unis," in the following column would denote, trot the exports to the United States, but merely the exports from Haiti in American vessels. But in the offitial statement of the trade of the United States for the same year, 1822, to which I referred in my last lette', it is shewn, that not only vessels belong ing to the United States were employed in that trade 'll4 ith Haiti, but also vessels belonging to Italian States, -...,... .., I %, ; 0 a ..s IA 46 Wi . ma • iii p ?1 O „? ~.. 0 . ; : M 1. 6 % -.. 2 O sa - - 10V a( 41 if M $ di " C if 1 if 1 '44 i i " C u lb 44 a I 4 1 16 1 II I NII C 1 10i as 14 1 ' 4 t II t u( tec i%l ovi A ies vi I the ' the , Ab wo ...le Al ho thi rec 0. fol Ur Al St, ni: in : "041 i I ~. iitr Tl . 1 r . v. LI Y ci. a i s 1 2 I Quantite des Badmen& Bois de Campeche. Bois de Gayse. Divers Articles. a. es ts X CM fb 0 2 s; Ina even to Neiti itself. Yet vessels belonging to nei= ther of these powers are mentioned in the document which they undoubtedly would have been had it been' intended to shew, as Artocut contends, merely the ves sels belonging to the diterent Idivers mentioned in the document from Haiti. The American official statement also specifies 312 tons of Danish shipping as being thos einployed. But in the Haitian document no refetence is made to the European Power of Denmark, but merely to the " Pos sessions Danoises," clearly indicating the locality of the places with which the trade of Haiu was carried on. It is clear, therefore, that the terms" Etit Unis" and " Possessions Danoises," were employed to designate the respective countries to which the exports from Haiti' were sent, or for which they were cleared out in the tirst instance, and had not reference merely to the nations to whom the shipping belonged. What is true of one or two of these designations is of course true of them all; and thus it is proved, with almost mathematical Certainty, that the terms " Grande Bretagne," were not employed as ANoLus asserts, with out assigning any authority or proof whatever in sup port of his opinion. Nay, with these obvious facts before him, or within his reach, he marvels at the ig norance of the Reviewer in not taking it for granted that the terms " Grande Bretagne," meant British ship ping. And although I have exposed his mistake, and demonstrated that the Reviewer did not err, it now remains for me to shew, that notwithstanding the vast importance attached by ANGLU3 to his fancied disco. very, the fact really bears, one way or the other, but in a very limited degree, on the question in dispute. For, the Reviewer, not trusting to such fallacious evidence as the inconsistent statement of the Haitian document, reasoned only on the comparative imports into this country, upon the authority of British document.swhich never has been questioned. When the Rbview was printed, the Haitian document was still before the public, uncorrected, chewing the lbs. weight of the articles said to be imported, as being dollars in value. When the Review appeared, pointing out the errors of the document, another copy of it was published, substituting the lbs. weight for dollars in value ; but the Reviewer having previously rejected the evidence of the document, on the ground of the inconsis tency which he exposed, had recourse to British official returns then before Parliament. It is to be regretted that he did not carry back his enquiries to other years, as the proofs thereby afforded of diminished exportation from Haiti to Great Britain, would have tended to confirm his argument : for in-' stance, the importation into Great Britain, from Haiti, of Coffee, Sugar, and Cotton, since 1818, was as follows: Period of Tian. 1818 1819 1890 1821 1822 1829 Coffee. I Sugar. Cato& wts.qrsalm. evrts.qrs.lbs. 1,6351 24 8,751 1 7 188,267 41097 1 10' 3,812 319 136,875 1 5,131 016 11,370 1 6 138,565 '8,085 1 1 17 18,057 41,632 2 1 139,363 4,421 0 1 44,246 The shipping employed has also been decreasing.— In the year 1818, the imporbarade employed 52 vessels, of 10,713 tons; whereas, last year, the number of vessels was only 26, and the tonnage 4,373 tons. From all which it appears, that the Reviewer might have used still stronger proofs of the correctness of his statement, had he deemed further proof necessary. , In a subsequent part of his letter, Amours reproduces the charge now confuted, but he somewhat varies hii terms. He inquires, "Is the Reviewer so little ac ," quainted with the state and course of commerce, as " not to know that the quantity 13,548,591 pounds of " coffee might be exported in British ships, and yet nos " landed in Great Britain? What is to hinder a British " ship carrying coffee to its best market, the Continent, " instead of bringing it into this country, where it is " loaded with prohibitory duties, and where it must be " re-exported before it can come into consumption." _ Now, the first observation to be made upon this is, that there is not a single passage in the Review imply. ing that ignorant* which is here assumed. If this assertion be incorrect, ANGLUS is called upon to state the passage in the Review. But the real question at issue is this: Can the mere presumption of these paissible facts satisfactorily explain the very great and estraor dinary dWerence between the Haitian document and the British official returns? Were it only a few vessels, in which they differed, it might not be worth while to pursue the inquiry. But the Haitian document, during the same period of time as the official year of Great Britain, states that the number of ships which cleared from Haiti for this country in the year 1822, was 78, and their tonnage 12,292 tons. The official returns of Great Britain for the same period state, that the vessels from• Haiti were only 26 in number, and their tonnage only 4,827 tons. In this instance the argument of ANOLUS, as to the difference of the official year, no longer avails him, as that of Great Britain coincides with that of Haiti within five days. Here it will be observed that the discrepancy to be explained amounts to not less than two-thirds of all the ships, and three fourths of all the tonnage, which the . Haitian document wishes it to be believed cleared out from Haiti with goods for Great Britain. And this very enormous discrepancy is disposed of by Arior.vs affording the Reader only a mere Skpposiiiine instead of proper and correct documents. If the argument of AA ws bad been supported by the names of the British ships and their masters, who cleared out from ilaiti for Great Britain, and afterwards landed theft targoes on the Continent of Europe, to the extent of their ton nage (if not included in the British retul-ns), it would have been a satisfactory solution of this apparent con tradiction; but, until that statement be made, the public will be able to decide whether Anomie has given a faithful interpretation of a document respecting which so much has been said. it is equally easy to shew a similar discrepancy with respect !o the Haitian report of goods imported into Haiti from Great Britain, and the number of vessels employed. In this case, AxoLus can tare no difficulty in justifying his statement, by references to official do cuments, and as the means of proof are accessible, there can be no apology for delay. The Haitian document states thatoods to the amount of 3,661,244 dollars, were imported into Haiti froml Great Britain, in the year 1822, and that the shipping employed in the transport of the goods so imported amounted to 100, and their tonnage to 14,618 tons. There is no estimate, or satisfactory standard of value, which can serve for the purpose of accurate comparison as to the goods ; but official British documents lute tine ships to amount to only 21 in number, and their ton- nage to 3,825 tons. Now 1 would call nn those who have had the pa tience to trace this tedious but not unimportant com parison, to decide whether Affect's ought not in fair ness to justify his charge against the Reviewer, by giving the names 6f the 100 vessels, that of their Masters, date of departure, or arrival. and thus afford some satisfac tory reason for this disciepaticy in statement, which with reaped to the number of vessels, is an increase in the pro portion of. jive, and in the tonnage of four to one? He has the means of obtaining the names of the vessels, and the dates of their departure, if the facts be as implied by the document, which I confliently deny. It is not fair, In argument, for ANcLos to put queries to the Reviewer which can be answered by A stows him self; and therefore, he has only to supply himself, if he can, with a satisfactory justification for his merely afford ing a supposition, instead of correct and detailed returns, of whose accuracy the public can judge, as well as how far they satisfactorily explain the very great discrepant cies I have pointed out. The next charge _which AsioLus brings against the Reviewer relates to the provisions of the Code Henri, for the regulation of plantation labour in Hayti. He says, " In no part of the article, on which 1 hate corn " mented at such length, doe.; the Reviewer appear to ." me to have acted more unfairly, than in the repre " antatiuns which he has made of the provisions of the " Code Henri, for regulating plantation-labour. Sup " pose that a Frenchman, or an American, were to " profeis to give to the world a view of the erudition " of the English labourer, and in execution of his pur " pose, were to quote only that part of our Statute " book which consigns vagrants to the workhouse, or 16 which carts paupers home, or which fixes the hours "of mechanical labour, and then were to exclaim, " Such is the boasted freedom of the English peasant, " a freedom not very far removed from the character " 6 of slavery,' would not the whole ire of the Quarterly • Review be poured out on such a man r It is necessary now, to refer to the passage which has produced this charge of unfal - rnes , . In page 574 of the last Quarterly Review, it is said— *" We presume, no Abolitionist, in citing the example of • St. Domingo, would venture to argue, that the in " creased happiness and prosperity of the Slaves " under their new condition in that Island (admitting, " for the sake of argument, that such improvement has • taken place), would justify a general revolution in " our West India Colonies, accompanied with a similar " destruction and ruin of the European inhabitants of " those Colonies. With respect to the improved con " dition of the Haytiaa Slave, in his new character as a 44 free•labourer, we find certain qualifications in the • Code Henri, which- must be very mortifying to the " advocates of sudden emancipation; for, in this very " Colony, which burst forth into a state of freedom from slavery, we find the same hours of labour irre vocably established as' in the Slave Laws of our own. Colonies; work' was to commence with the day-light, " and to be continued uninterruptedly till tight o'clock; " one hour was to be allowed to the labourer for break.; * fast, on the spot where employed—at bine, work was . 14 to recommence, until noon, when two hours reptile( " were to be given to the labdurer ; at two, exactly, he 0 was to recommence work, and not to leave off be. " fore night-fall ; and no labdarer, without special per " mission of the Lieutenant of he King, was to be 4 ' allowed to absent himself Tram the plantation on " working-days, unless at the special request of the " Overseer or Conductor. We do riot know how fax " these regulations, supported by strong penal enact menu, in some cases amounting t 6 the loss of 44 and pronounced to be ' irrevocable, have been " modified ; but we think them eminently calculated to shew, that the gradations of freedom hitherto at. " tamed by the labouring population of that Island, are " not very far removed from the character of slavery.' This question is one of fact. Did the " Code Henri* impose rules on the emancipated Negro employed in agriculture generally arta universally, or did it not ? If it did not, the argument is clearly in favour of ANOLUS. If it did, his analogy is in the highest possible degree absurd. The part of 'our Statute-book to which he alludes refers to only a *certain part of otir poor, but the. part of the Code Henri referred to by the Reviewer, re lated to all the agrichltnral labourers under the do minion of Christophe. But Awocus, when he 'Ands that his . present positions Are utterly untenable, May be disposed to argue that, although this might be true at a former period, it is not proved to be so in the present day. It was not necessary for' he Reviewer's argument to prove that it was; but if Ai suits will refer to a pamphlet pub lished in the present year at New York, printed by Mahlon Day, 572, Pearl -street, containing " The " Correspondence relative to the Emigration to Haiti " of the free People of Colour in the United Stateskto ig gether with the instructions of the Agent sent out by " President Boyer," he will find certain passages of a very disagreeable tendency, and bearing strongly on the Confutation of his argument. He will find that it was nut only deemed necessary by Toussaint and Christophe, to compel the emancipated agricultural Slave Population of Hayti to adhere to cer tain rules and regulations of labour, but that in the cased free American blacks, coming over from the United States to Hayti, in this year, 1824, the President, Boyer, found it necessary to bind them by a legal agreement to enter into certain stipulations, with respect to the mode of applying themselves to agricultural pursuits, lest they should be liable to become vagrants. The article is as follows: " Article 7. 'host of the Emigrants who prefer ap " plying themselves individually to the culture of the " earth, either by tenting lands, already employed, " which they will till, or by woi king in the field, to " share the produce with the Proprietor, must also en " gage themselves by a legal act l that upon arriving at " Haiti, they will make the above-mentioned arrange " ment ; and this they Must do before the Judges of the " Peace, so that on their arrival here„ they will be 4‘ obliged to apply themselves to agriculture, and not be " liable to become vagrants." And yet. in the teeth of this practical experiment, in the very centre of Negro independence, in the Republic of Haiti,—there are persons in this country, who are under the iofiuence of such infatuation and delusion, as to regret that laws are not peremptorily passed here for the emancipation of the slaves in our Colonies, without any means being used for securing the labour of those Slaves, when emancipated, for agricultural purposes. It has been more than once asserted in the House of Commons, that the state of the Free Black Population in America is a triumphant proof of the policy of ernar4 cipation. lamat a loss to imagine how it is possible for any man to maintain such an argument (however desirable it may be that it should be true), after having read a paragraph in the pamphlet to which I have re fereed, and which I shall now proceed to lay before my readers. It is in a letter addressed to President Boyer, by Mr. Dewey, the Secretary of the Colonization So ciety, and who subscribes himself, " A sincere well. " wisher to the prosperity of your Government, and an " ardent friend to the injured sone of Africa." He is speaking of the free people of colour in the United States. " There are many whites (be says), who truly lament " their" (the negroes e ) " unhappy lot, J . :intro over their " wrongs, and would gladly do anything to redress " them :—but they find that such is their degradation, " and public opinion towards the coloured people, " that it is next to impossible to elevate them in moral " Character, and to benefit them in this country. The " ♦bolition Laws passed in this State (New York) and " others, haveonly tended to diminish their nundmrs and "their mains of support, without giving any real advan " toga in their moral and civil condition:' It would be well-for Awotus, and for those who, in common with himself, are disposed to treat with scot n and derision the temperate course which cite Gfivein. ment have taken on this m'mentoos question of int proving the state of the Slave, with reference to an ul timate extension of privileges to his race. to weigh well the important lesson which this paragraph conveys. and to receive and profit by this practical proof, that Aboli tion Laws, when passed without due consideration of time and circumstances, may produce effects completely opposite to those which wore contemplated by their framers. —1 am, Sir, your most obedient set vane, VINDEX. PUBLIC COMPANIES. Yesterday, on the Foreign Stock Exchange, the atten tion of capitalists was nearly exclusively directed to the Shares of Public Establishments. The Real del Meats Mexican Mining Shares wtre sold as high as 7781. eac's Share ; but that this was speculation, was speedily ren dered apparent by their almost instantaneous decline to 550 guineas each. They afterwards advanced to about 6501. each, and a great deal of business was done in them. It is proper here to observe that the Shares of this Company are 4001. each, nn which an advance of 701. each has been made. Angle Mexican Mang Shares also felt the full force of public opinion, for they advanced in the morning to 461. afterwards de• dined to 581. and the last price was 42/. The shares of this Company are LlOO each, and the money actually advanced on each share is £lO. The United Mexican Shares are £4O each, and £l2 a share has already been advanced. In the morning they were sold at £44 each share, fell to LSI, and closed at £4l. The great improvement which has occurred within these few drys in the Mexican Mining Shares is mainly to be Uttributed to the very friendly manner in which the natives received the Engli.h Miners when they commenced their operations, for it had been pre viously doubtful, whether national prejudice would not have possessed itself of the place of common sense, and prevented foreigners from interfering with the internal sources of wealth possessed by this vast Republic.— Canadian Shares likewise felt the effects of public opinion, for they were yesterday much in demand, and have commanded a premium of £8 per cent.— Another most important establishment has been formed, denominated the Liverpool and Manchester Rail-road Company. The money robe raised is 400,0001. in four thousand shares of 1001. each, and the advantage to be gained is the quick and cheap dispatch of met chandize in that district. One thousand tons of merchandiee pass daily between Liverpool and Manchester, and by the route of the Canals. the average time taken is 86 hours, and the expense 15s. per ton, whilst, by the proposed rail-road, the time will be reduced from thirty-sis to five hdnrs, and the expense from 156. to 10s. per ton. That quick returns and low charges constitute the soul of trade is undeniable, and the establishment of this Company will confer a great benefit on Briti,h com merce. Its advantages are so apparent, that the shares are 'eagerly sought after, and a premium of twenty-five per cent. has already been paid on them. Free and rapid communication must extend commerce, and when it is known that shares in the Old Quay 11 0 , 2 ration, which originally cost 701. are now w or th I, each, the necessity of competition is placed beyond dispute, for this profit is too large for justice to be done to the people. To the shares of the above Companies, the next, yesterday, in importance is the Greek Loan, which has experienced a farther advance of nearly two per cent. the Bonds having been sold at 551. SOUItIiNG INTELLIGENCE. BETTING-ROOM, TATTERSALL'S, NOV. 5.4. the Room was well attended to-day by the subscribers, but very link business was does. Some betting took place on the fights. and 'ailed a little in the cootie of the day; as at the opening of the room Curtis was the favourite for one fight, and the odds vs Josh Hudson were b to 1; but before the closing of the doors, the Jew was the favourite at 5 to 4 (taken), and the odds on Hudson fen to 5 to 4. 1,000 to 13 was taken twice against a horse by Reuben;, out of a Paynator Mare (bought at the Bazaar for 50g.. by Mr. aberly). for the Doncaster St. Leger next year. tot was taken against Rufus fur the, Riddkswortb next year. Thu following is a correct statement of the odds MOIST. 6 to 1 aist Muleteer 10 td 1 apt Rufus 111 to 1 apt Bolero 18 to I apt Advance 90 to 1 apt Camas 90 to 1 apt Legacy 25 to 1 apt Diana 25 to 1 apt Mane* 25 to 1 apt Nigel 95 to t apt she Doke °Mat% c. by Phantom e It to 2 apt Aline 9 to t apt Sorcery 10 to 1 apt Waltz 12 to 1 apt Attica 16 In 1 apt Fltst Fly es to 1 apt Pipylino 95 to 1 apt Shoveller 30 to 1 apt Zulrika flirt. 11 to 1 agst Memnon 12 to I apt Cleveland 17 to 1 apt Rtdgauntlet 42 to 1 apt His Grace 25 to 1 apt Maodane I 25 to I apt brother to Deport I 27 to lain Muleteer 30 is I apt At:drupes 35 to 1 apt Croweateber 40 to 1 age Itosamord HUNTING. The Hampshire Hunt will meet on Thursday, at Bradley; So turday, at Nutley Church. The Hambledon Rounds meet to-morrow, at Presbaw House; Friday, at Westend Telegraph. The Bari of Darlioston s fox-hounds meet to-morrow, at Mesh- Won Plantations; Friday, -at Y.ifforth Moor. ' The Lambton foc-hounds meet on Thursday, at Embletoo ; Sa turday, at the Hare and Hounds. The Duke of Orafton's hounds meet on Friday, at Two-mile Ash. -Lord Aosoa's Hounds meet on Friday, at ldiddletoo; Saturday. at Croft Hill The Eau Sussex (o:• h ound' meet on Thursday, at Plumptcm; Salmilib at Wytch Croft; Monday, at Utile Morstead. THE ANIRSBURY COURSING CLUB, ' The Anteshery Cup was woe by Mr. Dayly's ithoda, Weft Mr. A. Wyudbam's Whistle. The Stoneheme Stake was wee by Mr. Mill's Marled% budge Sir H. Vivian's Voltigeer. The Fig&Mean Stake was woe by Mr. ages Diast, brides Mr. S. Heethcote's Ilasebell. The Amesbury Puppy Stake was won by Mr. Miles Magi c , beating Mr. Wyndham's Wizard. Th e Tidworth Stake Mr. Windham and Mr. Pettat divided. The Tullamore Mait was robbed on the morning qt the oth instant. tad an immense number of Bank notes taken out at it ; they were cldelly of ‘5O, £2O, £lO, £6, and £3 each. pay*. to Amin , perms. • LI I .1' i i ! 2 13 0 x H M O , ; • •