Northern Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1857-12-30 00:00:00

HAYTI AND ST. DOMINGO.

REV. J. MACNAUGHT IN REPLY TO THE

REV. J. K. GLAZEBROOK.

The eastern part of the island of Hayti, which has
constituted itself into a separate government, under the
name of the Dominicen Republic, forme, according to the
boundary treaty between France and Spain, signed in Jane,
1777, two thirds of the whole island. But even after this
treaty had been coneuled, and in spite of the good
understanding which appeared to exist between the
various parties concerned, difficulties and contentions so
often arose amongst the colonists that, in order to put an
end to them, France asked for, and Spain agreed to, the
cession of the eastern part of the island, which arrange-
ment was completed in July, 1795, by the tree), of Bale.
But this new accession to the French dominions depended
for many years exclusively upon its own resources, France,
at that time, being unable to turn it to good account.
This state of things continued until Toussant L'Overture,
then Governor-General of the island, took possession of the
Eastern territory in the name of the French Republic, and
entered St. Domingo on the 26th of July, 1801. France,
however, did not remain in the Peaceful possession of the
who'e island, fir the people, after a long and sanguinary
struggle, the like of which it is not easy to discover in the
annals of history, rescued the western part from the yoke
of its former masers. Thus did the sun of the IA of
January, 1804, shine upon the first free and independent
negro state in the new world, and the name of Hayti
replaced that of St. Doming', But Dessalines, the
valiant founder of Haytieu independence, felt that neither
peace nor stability could be secured to the new state as
long as any part of it whatever was occupied by France,
and the regenerated race continued to live side by side
their former oppressors. In 1805 he undertook a campaign
against the town of St. Domingo, the stronghold of the
French forces in the eastern division of the island, but
he was unable to carry his bold enterprise into execution
as be possessed no strung pieces of ordnance wherewith to
batter the walls of the town, while the enemy was well
provided with cart non. After a siege of nearly a month he
aba•tdoned the undertaki ig upon learning that a French
fleet was in sight, and hastening to the succour of the
besieged garrison. On his return to the western part of
the island, and in order to guard the country against the
aggressions of foreign neighbours, hs promulgated the
Imperial Constitution of 180.5, by which were proclaimed
the independence of the island and the principle of the
unity, indivisibility, and inalienability of the whole
territory. After the death of Dessalines, the western
part of the island was divided into two governments;
the ono in the north under the dominion of
Christophe, who proclaimed himself King of Hayti,.
and the other in the south and west, the
President of the latter first being Potion, and subsequently
Boyer, who succeeded him. This anomalous state of
things continued until 1820. In October of thlt year
Christophe being unable to suppress the rebellion of his
own troops who were tired of his tyranny, put an end to
his life, whereupon the whole western part of the island
was immediately united' under one government, bearing
the name of the Republic of Hayti. It is worthy of
remark that all the constitutions of Hayti from those of
Dessalines, Christophe, and the republic down to the
imperial one adopted in 1849, proclaimed the unity of the
territory as eFe3utitl to its security and independence.
Those provisions of the Haytian constitutions may be
regarded as solemn pronses against ali insidious attempts
to bring about or to perpetuate, the dismemberment of the
territory ; and as periodical warnings against the fatal
results- to the independence of the country of such a
suiehlal policy. The Seanish co'onies availed themselves
of the invasion of Spain by Napoleon, to expel the French
from their territory. The eastern part of Hayti being
guarded only by a handful of French soldiers, easily
rel'eved itself of the foreign yoke. The chiefs who
delivered their country from its disgraceful thraldom, did
not wish again to become the subjects of Spain ; but that
country being early warned of their dreams of independ-
ence, took immediate and efren'ual measures to prevent
their fulfilment. The colony, therefore, again became a
part of the S' stain West India p ssssionr. In 18e4, by
the treaty of Paris, France formally recognised the right
of Spain to possess the eastern part of the island. The
firm re-establishment of Spanish rule was unfortunately
followed by the resus,itation of slavery, which, although
existing in a mild form, could not fail to be, as indeed it
ever is, a crime, a 'caudal, and a curse. Spain being •too
much engaged in repairing her own disasters at home
neglected her colony, from which she could net derive any
immediate advantage. Abandoned to itself, without
indus'ry and cenimerce, to an extent ceirenensurate with

TO THE EDITOR OF TUB NORTHERN TIMES.
Glazebrook's letters of yester 'ay and to-day
do not seem to me to have much to do with any of the
paragraphs of my two first letters. However, I shall give
them such attention as ESADIO necessary.
Mr. G.'s epistle of yesterday ought to have been an
apology fer the several misrepresentations of which I
showed, in my letter published December 16th, that Mr.
G. had either actually been guilty, or else had even shame-
lessly confessed himself the perpetrator.
That Me. G.'s letter of yesterday is not intended by him
to be an apology, appears by the fact that he continues—
in his own words --to "amuse " himself by tho " artifice "
of " altering the punctuation " of my " words," in order
to "to n them against" myself. Mr. G. also disavows
all intention to apologise, when he asks you, Sir, to
observe that he has shown no wish or intention to retract
or modify his assertions."
I am sorry, for Mr. Glazebrook's own sake, and for the
credit of oar common profession as Christian clergymen,
that he refuses to comply with the ordinary rules of
of courtesy. However, I have done all I can far the main-
tenance of those rules, as wallas of the higher principles of
morality and religion, and the theme of their violation
mast lie where you, Si-, and your readers may adjudge it.
With reference to the whole column of this morning's
letter, which Mr. Glazebrook devotes to " Woolston," I
shall only reply in the terms of my letter which you
published on the 11th instant, "Let it be observed, I am
not vindicating Woolston, for I am not acquainted with his
writings." He is "a writer whom I have neither quoted
nor even read:" and, supposing. " Mr. G. could blacken
Wool-eon to his heart's content, I submit that this would
not affect any one question at issue between Mr. G. and
myself."
Mr. G. states that I " refuse to believe the narrations of
the Gospel respecting Christ." This assertion of Mr. G.'s
I met with a plain and decided, but most respectful denial.
lf some third party should say to me, "I believe Jesus to
be the Son of God, and to be my Saviour, but I do not
believe that Jesus ever called the rulers of his country
foxes, hypocrites, and a generation of vipers," I dare not
excommunicate such a third party ; I dare not deny him-
the name of Christian. This is the entire purport and the
distinct statement of p. 200-in "Aracnaught on Inspiration:"
For myself, I am a most firm believer in "the narratives
of the Gospels respecting Christ ;" indeed, so firmly do I
believe them, that I deem it right to compare their various
statements of the same events, in order to learn and believe
their testimony on many subjects where their teaching is, as
at present, too commonly neglected.
Of the superficial and unobservant manner in which
Scripture is too often used, we have an example in the
quotations with which Mr. Glazebrook supports his asser-
tion, that " The promise" of God's patting his laws ino
the minds and hearts of men, " only °rends to God's
people—is limited in its effects, and does not prove that all
men are thus enlightened." To support this assertion,
Mr. G. quotes several texts in senses entirely difierent
from the significations attached to them by their-writers.
Oh ! that Mr. Glazebrook heel interprets I his texts on
those excellent, rationalistic principles which he laid down
in his letter in your paper, stir, of the 18th I Oh ! that
before he denied that " all men" are " enlightened" by
the Word God, which addresses itself to their hearts and
minds, Mr. Glazebrook had only remembered those words
of the Gospel (John i. 9.), that (;he word which was
with God, and was Go I) was the true light which lighletle
every man that cometh into the world ! So much sir, for
all that Mr. Glazebrook has written about God's limiting
the light of Ili., Word to the minds of some men, and not
extending that light to "every men that cometh into the
world." Mr. G. must either abandon his position, or make
up his mind to contradict the plain teaching of Holy Writ.
iIL r. Glazebrook has several times intimated that I am
"in a rage, &3." Now, sir, I beg most good hurnouredly,
to assure my opponent, that I never was in a better
temper in my life. Not only is it blithe Christmas time
when every heart has so much in which to rejoice and
for which to be thankful; bar, moreover, I am, just now,
in particular glee, because I am satisfied that this
controversy, betwixt Mr. G. alai myself, has, by the spirit
we have displayed and by the arguments we have produced,
been eminently calculatel to open men's minds and to
advance that cause of truth for which alone I contend. I
say, lamin a particularly geed humour just now. lam
tot at all disposed to be angry and call any man hard
names. But I hope Mr. Glazebrook will take notice that,
if I were disposed to adopt so silly and unchristian a
course, he is now, as he has been many a time, open to all
sorts of discourteous and offensive epithets. I might—
be it remembere 1 I put the case playfully—l might
exclaim, " What blasphemy is this of Mr Glazebrook's !
He does not believe tee Gospel ! He pretends to dofen
the Bible, bat he is only like Judas, acting the part of a
friend in order to be a traitor ! What hideous perversion
and falsehood is this of Mr. Glazebrook's ! Surely, he
mus; be an infidel, one of the Synagogue of Satan, a man
given up to believe a lie, &c., &e., &c. ! for Mr.
Glazebrook intimates that all men are not enlightened by
the Word of God; and he even dares to call such an idea
an "incredible absurdity," although the very Bible itself
tells us that •• The Word of God tighteth every man that
cometh into the world!' This is terrible blasphemy in
Mr. Glaz brook ! This is shocking infidelity, pious fraud,
sanctimonious hypocrisy, and inconceivable blasphemy!
Ile is another Joe Smith ! His writings are impostures
only worthy to ba designate l another " Book of Mormon !"
Now, I, most goad humouredly, put it to Mr. Glazebrook
what force there would be in all these terms, which are
bat a few of the phrases which I select from Mr. G.'s
vocabulary ? Is not all this worse than childish nonsense ?
Is it not altogether unworthy of a gentlemen, a theologian,
or a Christian ? How would any man like to have such
epithets, even foolishly, applied to himself? Tnen, why not
"do to others as we would they should do to us ?" Away,
I say, with such folly and uncharitableness. Mr. Glaze•
brook does not intend to go counter to what is right. He
does mean to blaspheme. He has no wish to contradict the
teaching of the Most High. Mr. G has fallen into grave
mistakes on this and several other subjects. I may have
fallen, or I still may fall, into my thee) of errors. Let us
correct one another, but let it
.be " in the spirit of meek-
ness, considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted "
The question about the sameness or oneness of substance
between the Father and the Son, is fairly worn oat. I
never used the word " similarity" of substance, to which
alone Mr Glazebrook seams to object. I hold the Homo-
ousion doctrine, and by oneness of substance, which is the
correct Prayer Book rendering of the term, I mean
sameness. When I wrote about my believing the
" oneness of substance" as an '• Article of Peace," I, by
no means, said or implied that I did not fully assent and
consent to that article. I simply meant, what no man of
common sense is now likely to deny, that this article,
about the metaphysical essence of the Father and the Son,
is not of much use or importance, however true it may be.
The matter is quite exhausted, I venture to submit, and
never was relevant to the controversy in hand. Only, as
Mr. Glazebrook attacked my personal orthodoxy with
reference to it, I chose fearlessly and candidly to follow
him on to his own grrund.
I notice that Mr. Glazebrook challenges my opinions on
the " Atonement." Sir, when Mr Glazebrook shall have
closed his controversy about the thirty-nine paragraphs of
my first heters to you, I shell be quite prepared to discuss
with him the great, important, and much misunderstood
doctrine of atonement. But one controversy at a tilts
is, surely, enough. Let us settle the questions raised by
the successive paragraphs of our first letters. This is
what tlr. Glazabrook challenged me to do, ante what I
undertook to perform.
Sir, I have only one other point to notice in Mr. Glaze.
brook's last letter. Ile writes, " I should at this moment
have declined to continue the correspondence, had I not,"
&c ; and, "so far as regards myself I wish this letter to
be file. I shall willirgly leave the question in their
hands who are competent," &c. Now, sir, this looks very
much as if Mr. Glazebrook did not like to proceed to
paragraph 4in my first letter. It looks very much as if
Mr. G. found it difficult to explain what " the church" is
which (he says) has been " preserved from dee:rinal
error " I say, Mr. G.'s words sound very much like the
beating of a retreat. Yet, surely, after challenging me to
the controversy—after proposing to " number the para-
graphs" cf my letters, in order to notice' the cardinal
points" of those letters, and " to prevent confusion"—
surely, after all this challenging , and provoking, Mr.
Glazebrook does not intend to retire from the field.
Surely, Mr. Glazebrook will not leave the remaining thirty-
six of my paragraphs uncontested, because he has not bean
as victorious as he might have wished in the battles
about the fist two or three paragraphs. Surely, Mr.
Glazebrook, after all his words, is not going to leave
unnoticed the mighty argument and crushing authorities I
have adduced in support of Reason as the supreme
earthly judge of Scripture as " only " wrees the
"immortal Chillingworth ") the rule of faith. Though
some of my friends, sir, tell me that Mr. Glazebrook will
never attempt to grapple with the d:fficalties of para-
graph 4, yet I cannot believe that my opponen will shrink
so speedily from a combat which he so earnestly sought
However, sir, Mr. Glezebrook's wo ds admit of the
interpretation which implies retreat, and I must. therefore,
most respectfully ask him what is his intention? Was his
last letter final" or not? If it was not final, then I
must trouble Mr. Glazabrook to keep to paragraph 3 of
my litter or, if he has done with paragraph 3, to proceed
to paragraph 4 If Mr. Glazsbroo i's last letter was
"final," it will only remain that I should use my right to
sam up and reply.
Let Mr. Glazebrook kindly inform us of his intention, and
we will do our best to meet his wishes.—Yours truly, Sir,
Bverton, Dec. 29, 1857. half Micnvota•

s wants, possessing but feeble means of defence, and
agitated
alike by internal factions, and fears of the dar-
ing pirates who sprang forth from the revolutions of
South America and came to infest the West India
Archipelago, the colony seceded once again, in December,
1821, from the mother country. Bet after the first moment
of exultation had passed away she felt her weakness, and
dreaded the vengeance of Spain. She dare not apply for
ail to the new republics of Beath America, who then la-
boured under the same feeling of fear; but in her
extremity she in February, 1822, threw herself into the
arms of the Haytians, to whom she promised feel y,
homage, and indissoluble union. The face of the Eastern
country changed immediately. Siarery was for ever
abolished there. A new and hotter administration was
establisn, d ; an armed and regular force organised ; the
Hayrien system of legislation introduced; order main-
tained in the interior, and the seaports guarded from
attack; labour encouraged; the exportation of precious
woods increased ; and agriculture developed. The results
soon b,,came manifiest. The great markets of the West
received and disposed of large numbers of the cattle of the
East. The more talented Dominicans were called to the
Haytian Legislature and courts of justices,. The funds of
great commercial bodies, especially of the English hoasea
at the Cape, FLytain Gonaivea, St. Mare, Port au Pririce,
and Jacmel were diffused throughout all pints of the
country, revivifying industry everywhere. When in 1825
France recognised the independence of Hayti, the eastern
part of the island expressed no desire to put an end to the
engagements into which it had entered, but continued to
live quietly under Hsytian rale. In fact the union proved
very advantageous to them, and they were never more
prosperous or happier than during the twenty-two years of
its duration. In January, 1830, Spain (folio:via. the
example of Franc:) seat to Hayti Don Felippi de Castro,
with a view to obtain an inodemnity for the loss of
the Eastern part. Bat the Haytian Gavernm -nt
refused to admit the claim, and the conduct of the
Government was much applaud. .d by all the Haytians,
hie uding the inhabitants of the Ede. In 1838, the union
was so coeaplete and considered so natural and indissoluble,
that khance signed a financial treaty in which she recog-
nised the whole island of Hayti as an independent state.
It was only so recently as 1844 that the inhabitants of the
Ea,t come to the conclusion that the degree of prosperity
which they had realized, and the dissensions which tem-
perarly existed in the West, would enable them to dissolve
that union which hid proved so beneficial to them. They
accordingly proclaimed their independence, and is order
to justify this extreme step they put forward frivolous and
vexaqous pretexts, among others raskiog it a reproach to
the Haytians th it in the cons ituti et of 1844 they had
edmittei the principle of religion liberty. But after a
short experiment of independent government., aid when
they found that the western part had been strongly recon-
stituted, they b.:gan to feel is what an awkward position
they had placed themselves. Even then had they not been
misled by ambitious chiefs, they might have retraced the
false step ; but instead of doing this they were induced to
abide by their policy of seeessior, and to cat for the
protecion of France, then for that of Englaud, and at
length, even for that of the United States, which last
power was at one time, actually on the point of seizing
the rev Republic ! To such a state of subserviency to
foreign intrigue, had disunion reduced the unh,ppy
Domin'ea: s, and, indeed, ar the present time, the condition
of their country is not lees deplorable. We must c7in-
chide by impressing our reat'ers with the reflection thet
the common interest of all Haytians, whether of the West
or the East, is to maintain undivided the :111 le island,
and that this is the only way to forward the improvement
of the country, and to maintain its freedom and independ-
ence. The misery of the Dominicans at horn', and the
state of anarchy and civil war from which they are con-
stantly suffering are sufficient proofs that the time his
arrived when they had better come to a friendly under-
standing: with their Hiytian fellow-countrymen ; and that
the police of those powers who hare favoured secession
has taiLd, and that for the sake of humanity, as well as
far the permanent security of their own c ;honks, they
ought to change their course, and promote, by moral
influence, as far as they can legitimately do so, the IT-
uaion of the two eecti ms of the island.

The once celebrated Madame de Chatelet died recently
at Bt. o,2rnaain'e. This lady, it will be recollected,
thought it an addition to her fame to rank the popular
avocat, Moir. Lemaire, amongst her conquests, but the
wily lawyer, after a short courtship, re.ired in favour of
the goldsmith De Chatelet. Last week her effects were
advertised to be sold by public auction, which Lemaire
no sooner heard of than he recollected that at a former
period he bad made a present to the lid), of a geld s
inff-
box, with his mioature artfully concealed on the top of
the blx. This, thr.nigh a motive of false delicacy, the
legal lover commissioned some of his frierds to bid for,
and to purchase at any rate. The eargcrness with which
they went to work occasioned it being put up, and
knocked down, at a most evravagant price. Lemsi e
did not much like this ; bo: lts,w much m-ra was his
ehargin increased when applying his finger to the spring
of the box, a portrait appeared--but instead of his own
dear image, that of M. de Caatelet, his professed end
socepted rival.

LIVERPOOL, WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 30, 1857.

"LIVERPOOL HO!"

TO THE EDITOR OF THE NORTHERN D ULF TIKES.

SlR,—There are two sides to every picture. Let
us look, for a second, at the opposite one to that
shown by " A Clerk" in your to-day's paper. 1
too, am a clerk. I, too, have been an ill-paid clerk,
I, too, have received liberal pay. I, too, have
written bad verses—almost as bad, perhapE, as
" A Clerk's." I, too, have been a Paul Treason
I, too, have fallen asleep on my stool on mail
nights. I, too, know full well what lam doing
when I declare " Liverpool Ho !" to be a story in
one volume, and a Truth ! The would-be sneers
of "A Clerk" are without point. They serve but
to unveil his malevolence. "A. Clerk" does not
want to curtail the sale of " Liverpool Ho !" No !
His CAUSE IS NOBLER, he says with philanthropic
modesty. His noble cause is thus embodied by
himself:—" We spit upon and spurn our egotisti-
cal self-elected champion, Mr. Oswyn !" Indeed !
Pray who elected the non-egotistical " Clerk s'
pedantic charopiJn of oppressed quill-drivers ?
" A. Clerk's " modesty, it seems to me, is about on
a par with his knowledge of mercantile office-life.
Once more, not repudiating Mr. Powys Oswyn,
I remain, Sir, yours respectfully,
Dec. 28, 1857. ANOTHER CLERK.