The Sun.
London, England, 1842-01-21 00:00:00

~....t t :
li zUilt.

LONDON:
FRIDAY, JANUARY 21, 1842.

We have read the protest of the officers and
crew of the Creole, and shall, when we can
find room, lay before our readers this Ame-
rican version of that affair. After reading
-
it, and after reading the violent language
which has been used in
Congress on the sub-
ject, by Mr. CALHOUN,
others, we still remain of
Mr. PRESTON, and
claim of a right to visit
p ships,o p ua
lnadr ►
i so
orators
rs likely t
the
ject is of trifling importance
which exists between the two compared to the
opinion that this sub-
asoevarecrinimAenmtse.rican
and
indulge in exag-
geration; they o responsibility but
habituallyerrupt the harmony
are under n
that of pleasing their auditory, and their ha.
rangues seldom lay down those principles which
guide the calm decision of responsible states.
men. Mr. CALI-mu/4 is not the Government,
nor even the President of the
United States.
His language seems to us of about as much im-
portance as the intemperate effusions of any of
the Irish Colonels in the House of Commons.

It is impossible, we believe, for the Go-
vernment of the United States to act against
a principle it has continually enforced

with respect to its own dominion, and which its
judicial authorities have always recognised and
acted on—the principle that every State is the
absolute and independent judge of what laws
shall prevail within itsi own territory. The
American Government cannot, and dare not,
for its own sake, call in question the right of
Great Britain to make what laws she pleases in
her own territories ; orb Great Britain might at
once, with far more reason than American could
appeal against any law of ours, call in question
the law of the United States which authorises
the continuance of slavery. Neither can the ,
American Government call in question the right
of the authorities of the Bahamas, to extend the
protection of our law to every man within their
jurisdiction. The right on this subject is clearly
on the side of England, and we do not believe
that the Government of the United States will
dispute it.
The only point which seems to us doubtful, is
where the authority of the American Government,
which extends over every American ship, ends,
and 'where the authority of the English Govern-
ment, which extends over the Bahama islands
and its waters, begins. If an English man of war
had met the Creole at sea, she would have had
no right nor business to interfere with that
vessel, and set the slaves at liberty. At the same
time, if an American vessel .contravene our
municipal laws. within our own waters, where
the Queen's writ runs, ifshe had imported slaves,
for example, into the Thames, a writ of habeas
corpus would bring them before the Queen's
Bench, and set them at liberty. The limit of
the respective jurisdictions of the two States
seems the only doubtful point.
In the case of the Creole, however, the doubt-
ful point seems set at rest by facts. She was
within pilot waters, and was boarded by a pilot-
boat from Nassau. She was within the quaran-
tine district, and received on board the quaran-
tine boat. She was, in fact, placed expressly
under English authority by the request of the
American Consul to have a
_guard sent on board
her, which,in addition to her being within our
jurisdiction, entirely superseded for,the time the
authority of the American Government over the
Creole. Not till then did the slaves receive the
benefits of the English law, and not till then did
they claim the rights which that confers on
them. The only point which can be subject to
doubt being set at rest by the facts, we do
not apprehend that the Government of the
United States will ever enter into a dispute with
our Government as to its right to give freedom
to the slaves on board the Creole.
The crew of that vessel, in their protest, dwell

much on the men in the pilot-boat having
told the slaves they were all free, and on our
law officers and other persons having given them

the same information. That amounts to nothing.
It was the conversation of man with mad, it was
proper information to give, and it was even
praiseworthy in the surrounding black population
to assist their brethren, as they appear to have
done, to obtain the protection of the English
law. We cannot say that it was equally
proper in the Americans to make an attempt,
happily abortive, to wrest the American vessel,
by force of arms, from that guard under the pro-
tection ofwhich the American authorities, namely
the Consul, had placed her. The protest clears
the authorities of Nassau of every imputation,

_ .
but convicts the Americans there of a settled de

sign to make an armed attack on the English
authorities, whose aid they had sought, which is
wholly unjustifiable.

If international law on this case be clearly on our
side, it is also clear that on it we shall have the
support of a large section of the United States.
On the right of search, international law is
against us; and all the Americans, to a man, will
go with their Government in resisting our
claims. On the question of slavery we shall
have the non-slave-holding States, and the
great anti-slavery party, of the United States
on our side.. They will feel,. and will re-
present to their countrymen, that it is their
own institutions and laws,, authorising slavery,
which are the sources of all the evil. The oc-
currence, therefore, will not be without its ad-
vantages, and will furnish the anti-slavery party
in the United States with a strong argument in
favour of their views.
England is not the only State which has abo-
lished slavery. The United States are surrounded
by States—the Danish Islands, Haiti, Venezuela,
&c.—in which slavery is abolished as well as in
the colonies of England. The maintenance of
slavery in the United States, therefore, so con-
trary to the principles of their free institutions,
threaten to involve them, the anti-slavery party
may urge, in continual collisions; and to pre-
serve slavery, they must be prepared for perpe-
tual war. The people of England may safely rely,
therefore, on receiving the countenance and sup-
port of the great anti-slavery party in the United
States on this question, which will do something
more towards keeping the peace than neutralize
the vapouring of Messrs. CALHOUN and Co.

We must add, that, according to the account
given by the Americans, the slaves who cap-
tured the Creole appear to have used no more
force than was necessary to obtain their not un-

righteous end. The slave owner on board, who
was killed in the fray, was, in the first instance,'
armed with a muske*j and though he fell beneath
the knives of numerous assailants, there was no
disposition evinced to act cruelly, or to take a
barbarous revenge. What is to be done with the
nineteen slaves who were the ringleaders, may
supply some grounds for a negotiation, but we
cannot believe that it can afford any occasion for
a serious dispute between the two countries.

We direct the attention of Directors of Railways
to the letter of Mr. WILEY, in another part of the
paper, for we regret to say the complaint does
not apply to one line only. 'Whenever competition
ceases, the servants ofCompanies and occasionally
also, the Directors become insolent, and are dis-
posed to make their own will law, without regard
to the inconvenience and the danger(as in this case)
of time Passengers. We therefore publish the letter
for the sake of the Proprietors, as well as the
public, because, if the nuisance be not abated,
the Legislature will be compelled to pass some
stringent enactments to protect passengers on
these great thoroughfares, and will also be

more inclined, than they have hitherto been, to
encourage competing lines. As the case is,
the Directors are amenable for any loss
caused by detention. No point of law
is more strictly adhered to both by the Judges
and Jury than that which awards compensation to
a passenger when a stage-coach proprietor fails
to perform his part of the contract, and both
common-sense and justice affirm that it must ap-
ply equally to the proprietors of railroads;

A singular condition of mind may now be de-
tected in the writers on the Tory side, which has
had no counterpart, we believe, in England,
since the days when Sir ROBERT FILMER
wrote his book on Divine Right. The defenders
of abuses in Church and State insist, with great
and incessant pertinacity, on the deference due
to authority. For a man to make discoveries in
chemistry and mechanicsis praiseworthy; to de •
tnonstrate a new truth in politics, or to depart
in any way from alvhat is already laid down,
is stigmatised as impudence and self-eon-
ceit, not to be met by argument, but to
be put down by whipping and imprison-.
ment. The same condition of mind pervades the
advocates of the Church, and the defenders
of trade monopoly. Rely on authority, say
the Puseyites ; hear the Church, reiterate the
anti-Puseyites ; there will be no rest, exclaim the
Tory politicians, if the people call in question
the authority of the law, and they all unite in
claiming a blind obedience to authority.
It is remarkable that, as Sir ROBERT FILMER
wrote his book soon after the period when
Church and State had been upset in the land, so
the Tories in Church and State now come forth
with their slavish doctrines on the heels of a
semi, but much more quiet, revolution. FIL-
BIER'S doctrines soon received a refutation, and
never had much influence on the public mind, as
the revolution or 1888 proved. We are inclined-

Site
Ym4 f` Wt.
t.44f
• ,
711rti&T
:4* froolViri , 4*.
„i 177; -