The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-16 00:00:00

and Liberia, ,is, that,; in-; the
,latter - colony, • no!
fvhite people are alltiwcil to reside for the pur- I
Pose of trade, or pursuing any mechanical busi-
ness, such being
.interided for the
.exclusive
teneflt„of the.coloured•people. This regulation,
ivhile it ' lessens the chances of mortality, also
laves the blacks from being exposed to the mor-
tifying distinctions which difference of colour
breeds, where the white retains all the pride of
.4is ancient superiority, and the black cannot get
rsd of the conscious humiliation of his recent
bondre. Besides., the assumed superiority of
the Wiles, and the insolence and injustice which
it often engenders, is too apt to provoke the san-
guinary retaliation of the savage natives. What
else gave rise to the fatal conflicts between the
Government of Sierra Leone and the Ashantees,
Which exposed that colony a few years ago to
the danger of utter annihilation ? But though the
native tribes on the borders of Liberia displayed
some hostility in the very commencement of the
colony, yet since then two native Kings have
put themselves and their subjects under the pro-
tection of the settlement, and other more distant
tribes have solicited their friendship and alliance.
In Monrovia, the capital of this independent
black nation, a newspaper, called the Liberia
Herald, has been established, which is published
monthly, and more business is said to be trans-
acted at that place than at any of the old Euro-
pean settlements on the Gold Coast. Agricul-
tural labours are also prosecuted, and there are
schools to diffuse the blessings of education,
which may eventually be the means of commu-
nicating the light of moral and Christian know-
, ledge to the benighted millions of the African
wilderness. The American Colonization So-
ciety only professes to colonize free people of
colour, whether they were previously free, or
made so, for the purpose of being colonized in
Africa, with the consent of the slaves Ulm-
. selves ; nor do they think it prudent or safe. to
dthes ia'empigophttddatisioinTohinotp.es whichAtlie
verse
.
out
t o
circumstances
• i
I. a .abolished the slave trade, or, in other
Ame-
r
lords, prohibited the importation of slaves
fionythe lst of January, 1808 ; England from-
t e 'lst 'of March in the same year. Since
tt
en the local Legislatures of nine of the Ameri-
can States have abolished slavery ; while it
sill' :ptevalls. in all the thirteen chartered and
4ven Crown colonies of Great Britain. Many
the slave-holders in the States of America,
Where slavery has not been abolished, had de-
clared their willingness to abandon the property
in slaves as soon as means could be procured for
heir voluntary emigration—and these means the
Colonization Society endeavour to afford.—
Morning Herald.

Our contemporary the Courier, last evening,
in a flippant article of more than ordinary length,
passed a high eulogium upon Sir James Graham,
to,. the unexampled zeal and ability which he has
displaycd in the management of his department,
as more particularly exemplified in the reductions
of the naval estimates for the ensuing year, and
the consolidation of the Navy and Victualling
Boards with the Admiralty. Without stopping
to point out the incongruities of our contempo-
rary, ours be the task to shew the greater folly of
that charlatan of a Statesman whom it professes
o eulogize, and to expose the weakness and ar-
rogance of the arguments by which he attempted.
on Tuesday evening to justify the abolition tab
two most w,eful departments, and the appoint-
ment of creatures of his own to perform the exe-,
cutive duties now under the controul of those
Boards. Sir James, after a fine rhetorical flow
rish, asserted that by the Bill which he asked leave
to introduCe he proposed to abolish the < navy
and Victualling Boards on the following grotinds.:

First, Because it was wrong in principle that three
Burris in the Naval Department should all derive their
power from the same authority, namely, the letters, patent
of the King, which necessarily led the minor Boards to
consider that their authority wan co-equal, co-existent, and
co-ordinate with that of the superior Board.
2dly. That from this circumstance the minor Boards
had always acted upon the p; inciple of opposition to the
authority of the Board of Admiralty; and
3,11 y. That the result of this had been to impede the
. public service, to divide responsibility, and to misappro-
priate the public money.
And Sir James did not hesitate to attempt to
illustrate his position by a statement of what he
called facts, but which Sir Byam Martin, Sir
George Cockburn, and Sir George Clerk incon-
trovertibly proved to have no foundation in reality,
and to be pure and genuine fictions of the eloquent
First Lord's creation. Now, with regard to the
assumption that opposition on the part of the
inferior Board to that of its superior must ne-
cessarily ensue, from the mere circumstance of
each holding its appointment by the same descrip-
tion of instrument, it does really appear to us
that a snore childish assertion could not have been
made. We never heard of a case in which a
Captain or Lieutenant of the service over which
this logician presides, resisted the authority of
his Admiral because they held their appoint-
ments by a commission from the Admiralty; and
it would be as reasonable to assert that the rea-
son of Sir James Graham and his Naval col-
leagues at the Board not pulling together upon
all occasions was that they were appointed by the
same patent, as to assert that because the Ad-
miralty,Navy,and Victualling Boards are all con-
stituted by letters patent, they must necessarily
struggle for the mastery, and forget the superi-
ority of the one Board and the inferiority of the
other two. But if Sir James had ever read those
instruments he would have known that, in most
express language, power to give instructions and
directions to the Navy and Victualling Boards is
therein given to the Admiralty, while strict obe-
tlience to all the directions of that Board is posi-
tively enjoined to the inferior Boards. As, how-
ever, it suited Sir James's purpose to usher
in his assertion that these minor Boards had
improperly resisted the authority of the Ad-
miralty by some kind of reason why such resist-
ance had been made, he appears to have ran-
sacked his brain for this principle, which could
never have had any real existence, and then to
taken his assertion
cltehaaratlys
ipts rhhaeac,tvdincanlboyp.frosouoi
dßoafyt
oinitsn
have
r
chol rtrreuctthn.e ss:r
h forgettingisw as
Martin, who, in answer to the vague statements
of Sir James that an under current had run for
areccteisostiuy in o
srofthpos
epAitn to
diomiraltyt,hepostsrietiavmelyofastsheerteddi:
with the frankness and firmness of an officer who
had served incessantly and with credit for forty-
six years,
ththeel!taavtyemiteonatrdof
had Sir n
Jameswil-
fully was
resisted,untrue; nor could it resist, the Ad-
miralty htat
; but. when that Board had hastily
sd tendency,
opinion
e
given orders impracticable to be executed, or
Navy Board
to the Admi-
ralty,failed zealously
had
Ipsraed edsiLleateltfiiunl I y tnshtoea re
case
es:et'
asd faithfully to obey the orders it had received.
Tlts was fully confirmed. by Sir George Cock-
burn„ who declared that during the twelve years
he sit at the Admiralty Board, the subordinate
departments had co-operated with the Admiralty
with the utmost zeal, and that he firmly believed