Star.
London, England, 1824-10-27 00:00:00

(FROM Till LONDON PRICE CURRENT, PCT. 26.)

COTTON-WOOL—The market for Cotton continues the sane.
The sales last week consisted of-
-20 Madras 50. per lb. in bond.
100 Pernams -10 Id.
• 800 Surats - &ed. to 61d.
400 Bengals - sd. to 54d.
160 Smyrnas - 7d. to 7id.
90 West India - W. to 1034. - duty free.

SUGAR—The market was rather scantily supplied, and good
and fine Sugar was scarce, consequently last week's quotations
were fully sustained.

Ber nao Sucaas.—There are buyers of large lumps at 765. to
765. Cd. per cwt. and 775. to 789. for small. Crushed Sugars are
inquired after at 334. to 355. for fair quality. Besides the additional
' duty on Sugar imported into the Austrian States, there is also an
increase of duty at Naples, the effect of which will be kit, and
certainly limit the demand for crushed Sugars.
Foaeice SUGARS little inquired for. At a sale on Weduesday, of
Java, Slams, Mauritius, and Bengal Sugars, the Java in baskets,
good grey, sold at ":::65. 6d. to 28s. Bengal white 31s. to 31s. dd.
Slams, grainy white damp, 245. to 295. 6J. Mauritius good dry
brown and yellow to 245. Gd.
COFFEE.—Tite unfavourable accounts received from the Fo-
reign markets, have caused this article to go off heavily, although
the juices have not materially declined. .1t to.day's sale good mid-
dling Jamaica sold at 975.6 d. per cwt. St. Domingo sold at 56 s. to
60a. and Brazil 565. to 58s.
ij (T.—The arrivals cf New Fruit from Malaga have been
exten.ive. With re;pcct to the market, little•alterttion to notice,
as demand dues t:01 yet appear general. There have been two
sales thissweek, and two are already advertised for nest.
TEA.—lloheas are id. to id. per lb. lower.
01L.—Since our last there has been a considerable inquiry foe
Fish Oils, and prices have advanced '2l. to 31. per tun. No fresh
accounts from the Fisheries.
H E.VII), FLAX, and TALLOW. —No alteration of conse-
quence to notice in the prices of Tallow since last week, but the ar-
ticle fully supports previous improvement.—Hemp continues in re-
, que.st, price, advanced 11. per ton.—Fla: as last quotid..

-

;
WEST INDIA SLAVERY.
LETTER VII.

The following Letter, which we now reprint, was originally num-
bered the Six:h, a std‘take which arose from the Letter in-
serted in the STAR of yestertlay.not having been printed in its
proper place.

TO TIIE. Plinio:fit OF TIIE STAR.
Silt —I am again compelled to call your attention to
another ,flagrant instance of misrepresentation in spirit,
if not in letter, on the past of Asonos and I antici-
pate the establishment of the proof of this assertion in
the most conclusive manner.
In the text and note beginning at page 572 of the
Quarterly Review, so often alluded to, is a long series of
observations on a Public document referred to by Mr.
Whitmore, in his speech in the House of Commens on
the 18th of May ; and the printer cf this article has
made a typographical ertor,by substituting the numeral
3 for that of 2. The Review says, "In a table drawn
4upby M. Inginac, eotitied, General Balance of the
"' Commerce of the different Foreign Nations with
44 4 Haiti, for the year 1823' ; and it ought to have
" said, General Balance of the Commerce, dec. for the
" year 18`22:" The tiros', as I have already stateJ,.is
in the printing. The reasoning is exclusively directed
to the year 1824. and the Ocement referred to by Mr.
Whitmore. Upon'this, Aitot:tra remarks, 44 But there
44 is another capital mistake of the Reviewer, which ten-
"'tiers his whole reasoning on the subject perfectly fal-
l. kiCi(MS and inapplicable. The document of M. In-
" ink; t•O'{vlich he refers, he 'describes as an account
1.4 die COM*. iie'Of • Haiti with Foreign Nations for
" 1823; whereas, on looking into the document itself,,
" I find that it contains an ;account of the Foreign Com-1
pierce :onlayti.oot for an,
but for 1822."
Does loont,iis pretend to !appose that the fact thus
discovered by him 'was it& estfultßy known to the Re-:
'viewer ? • He mat havelciiraVvit &it the observations of,
the Reeiewer were directed tp the Ii Cement for 1822,•
because it was to that identical document that Mr..,
Whit-More referred, and Attotus knew that fact, for he
says the Revietver 'teives'hard to prove that the state-
Xnents made by Mr. WhittriOre, on the authority of that
document, were fallaCiotis, Mr. Whitmore alluded to
the document for 18422. The Revieeer specifically al-1
luded to Mr. Whitmore% remarki upon that document.
therefore ANOLUS must have known that the change of
the numeral 3 for .2 was in accidental error of die press.
He 'states, that he had the document to which Mr.Whit-
more referred before him, and that fie hard looked 6 into
the document itself; which is a most unfortunatiachnis-
sion.on his part; for, as it was before his eyes, be must
hive perceived, 'that all the figures expressive-of quan-
tities, or •values,On which the Reviewer reasoned, were
identically the same as in the document before him.
He must have perceived that the question turned on
their abstract accuracy, and not on the point whether
they related' to ode year, or atiOtirr? And is it posiible
that ANGLUS can present himself to the. Public as a fair
reasoner, whose arguments are to be trusted, hen he
contends that the whole reasoning of an argument is
perfectly useless and inapplicable, because there is an
error in the press of 1823 for 1822? The fact is, that
ANGLUS knew perfectly well that lie could not meet the
argument by fair reasoning ; and it is an imputation on
his ingenuity, that he has only been able to resort to the
pitiful expedient which I.have unmasked to the Public,
to ward off the necessity of grappling with the real
substantial merits of the ease. Let it then be supposed
that this typographical error had not been committed,
and then let us take up the argument.
The tendency of the argument is, to shew that Mr.
Whitmore, who cited St. Domingo as an instance of
the advantages of free labour on the part of eman-
cipated Slaves, as compared with Slave-labour, had
been misled by an om:ial document, which had been
placed in his hands. Part of the letter containing the
docilinent alluded to by the Reviewer is quoted in the
Review; (and here I must incidentally remark that AN-
otos must have known the error in question to have
been an accidental one, for, in the extract from this let-
ter, the year 1822 is printed correctly, and contrasted
with 1823.) The passage is as follows ;—"Commerce
" has considerably increased" (says M. Inginac, the Se-
cretary to the President of Haiti, to his Correspondent
in LOndon;) " of which you Will have an idea by On-
es isultirik the paper which I send you, of the importa-
" tions and exportations of the yearHai., collected
acs
" the different -Custom-houses." • In that paper is the
. • table drabin uV.II Me* Ingintit, entitled •" General BA-
-4 lance of the ,C6mnierierif die •different "Fdreign Na•
44: tions.with Haiti for the ) ear 1822," iMprope4ty ps inted
in the note to the Review, 1823.
ANGLUS then proceeds to a second charge. He says,
" In addition to this blunder,"' (pretending to suppose
that the introduction of the year 1823 for 1822 was not
an ettor Of'the ideas,) " he (the Reviewer,) adopts the
" typographical error of the h.:forming Chi-1)7:0e, which
" has translatedthe mark:forpontids weight into dial-
" lars Vane -
In the first place, it is snipitions when ANcLus be-
gins to accuse the illorning,Chronide Of error ;—but
when he applies the term " typographical error" to a
blundering and ignorant mistranslation of a French.
word, is it possible to conceive a greater confusion of
the plain terms of the English language?
The British and Colonial Weekly Register, of the 4th
of September, a paper. with which Ationos is as well
acquainted as he is with the Correspondent of M
Inginac, has these Obseriations on the Review : " One
"cause of the diScrepanCys might easily 'have occurred
" to. the Reviewer, if h'e had been disposed to observe
.4 it. In printing the account in the Newspaper, the
44 quantities were headed dollars instead of pounds
"weight. This is so evident in all the items, that it
" could 'only Lave been Overlooked by the Reviewer by
66 desinn."—All that she Reviewer had to shew was,
that the public had been juggled—that Mr. Whitmore
had been deceived-wbettier by interitiOn'or design,-it
was not his. business • •ii qnirer—fhi Britilh and
Colonial Weekly Register,•on the .25th of September,
18'21, publishes this -very -document in the original.
French, vi kb this paragrae;•"`*As the errors" (not;
typagraphidder rors,. A:gotrna 'called them) " which
" aapeared•iii•the'statenient of .the C.Qlllllneice of Haiti,
. " published vs Me MorniarChro...dide, from whence "tee
"co .pied the article, have occasibned.'ronch Confusion,
"Are thinkiit iiPedient to. punt an exact 'copy Of this
" account, from the :Original intim document now
" before as," (M. Ingitistei English Correspondent
heir% acqtrainted -with' die .Editor 'of The Briash and
Caunial Wog,. Vgiiteio): "'The I;otirde'eilist spoil&
"to the dollar, the ound weight is nearly' eiittil to
CrarN,......one bun:tired 'Haitian being equal to
one_hunJaed ailed eight 'pounds 'English. beg to
• i Vire, tiuw cattle" it that We-Minted The JJ:itis/i

and Colonial Weekly JAtt.rnhaYing, as was afterwards
shewn, the means br itces: to tl4`original document,
should_ Jinn .preferred.kuoting an incortect arenslation
which had appeared in the MeinikrC'hroniefel Is it
pOssible to mike an apology for this substitution of
error for truth ? But then it must be • remembered,
that if the mistake trot been made, the argument
would have been cmclusive'ahainst Mr. Whitmore
and those who had reasoned with him.
But I have nlt yet quite disposed of ANGLE'S and The
British and Colonial Weekly Register. In the latter
Paper, published. June 12, 1824, is to be found this
passage:—" Sugar" (that is, sugar ft oat St. Domingo)
" is effectually excluded here" (in G! eat Britain) " by
" prohibitory duties: but in France alone the quantity
of Haitian sugar imported in 1822 was of the value
44 of 370,000 dollars." And if any person will refer to
the document itself, as pi anted in The British and Colo-
nial Weekly Register of May 15, 1821•, he will find it
there stated, that the value of the sugar exported from
Haiti to France, in 1822, amounted to 371,000 dollars.
But when a sufficient time had elapsed to allow the ge-
neral circulation of this false statement, if any of my
Readers will refer to The British and Colonial Weekly
Register of September 25,1824, they will find it therein
stated, not that the value of the sugar exported horn
Haiti to France in 1822 was 371,000 dollars, but that
its Weight consisted of 374,000 French pounds, being the
same identical number.—Now was there ever such a
juggle and farce as this, in a correspondence that as-
sumes the character of being carried on by the organ of
a very considerable party in a State like Great Britain ?
And in pursuing this subject (for it is not yet disposed
of), I would beg particularly to inquire, what is meant
by the explanation prefixed to the Haitian document in
The British and Colonial tVeekly Register of the 25th
September, 1824, that " the gout de corresponds to the
" dollar ?" Is it to be understood from this paragraph
that the legal Haitian coin called a gourde is really of
the same value as the Spanish coin called the dollar? Is,
it not clearly'the intention of the Editor that his readers'
should believe that their value is one and the same?—
Because the opinion which any person may form with
respect to the value of the exports and imports of Haiti
may not only materially, but entirely tutu on this point.
M. Chanlatte, of Haiti, in his Appel aux Haitiens, page 9,
says," M. Martignac, an lieu de denigrer d'un van si
" ridicule ' les petites pieces de cuivre a peine blan-
" chies, et aux quelles it a plus au President d'Haiti
" d'assigner la valeor d'un quart de gourde,' ne de-
" vrait-il 'pas de prefetence soupirer amerement au sou-
" veoir des mandats, et des assignats, que la France
" avait echanges contre les monneries d'or et d'argent
64 qui cireuloient en France, dans le -terns denomrne de
" la terreur?"—This passage would give a very diffe-
rent'estimate of the value of the gourde. Is AMASS
able to contradict it?
It is really amusing to ascertain the extent to which
such -grave and learned personages as the President, the
Vice-Piesidents, and the Committee, of the Anti-Sla-
very Society, had been puzzled by this document from
Haiti, the errors of the translation of which are so
palpable, when the Reviewer deals with them, that it
is said 46 nothing but design could have overlooked
" them." In page 23, of the Report of the Anti-Sla-
very Committee, published (be it remembered) since
the last Quarterly Review, is the following passage :•••
46 4 The sugar exported from St. Domingo, previously
" 6 to the emancipation of the Slaves,' say the West
" Indians, 6 was 160 millions of pounds ; but since
61 6 free labour has been established, that Island does
46 d_rst Manufacture enough for its own consumption.'
" The inference intended to be drawn from the fact is,
that the emancipation of Slaves will tend to diminish,
" if not destroy production. 'Eat what is the real state
"of the case with respect to St. Domingo? In the
," first place, it is not true that St. Domingo does not
66 grow sugar for its own consumption. In the year
" 1822, besides satisfying its own demand, a certain
"
" quantity, indicated by the figures 652,451, was ex-
ported thence, chiefly to France*. It is not c!ear
" whether this quantity is intended to speck pounds or
" hundredweights." Here is a grave official document,
,published for the purpose of enlightening the public
mind, and of settling and consolidating public opinion,
in which it is frankly avowed, that the Anti-Slavery
Society are so conversant with Haitian affairs, that they
are actually uncertain whether the figures '652,451 are
intended to specify 'pounds or hundred-weights! 1
would only call upon any. person who is in the slightest
degree conversant with the bearings which arithme-
tical data-have on argument, to think of the force of
that series of reasoning, and. of the authority of those
reasoners, who are obliged to confess their ignorance
whether the exports of sugar from Raid, chiefly to
France, amounted to 652,451 pounds, or to 73,074,512
pounds e. 652,15! hundred-weights) when the
Haitian document itself stated, that only 374,000 lbs.
were sent to Fiance ? Such are the. absurdities into
which men fall, who form opinions under the influence
of feelings, and not of facts.
But admitting, for the sake of argument, that the
Haitian document is correct, and that.652,4511b5. or
about 435 hogsheads of sugar really were exported
from St. Domingo, yet this is only about:the two him:
dred and fortieth part of what was produced-front the
French part of the Island alone, prior to the emancipa-
tion of the Slaves. Will ANGLUS, will the Anti Slavery I
Society, deny that specific fact, thus simply and-for-
mally stated? Undoubtedly, if the numbers applied to
hundred weights, and not to pounds, this calculation
would not be correct.;—but no man in his senses ever
pretended to believe that hundred-weights were in-
tended to be expressed by these figures, in a French
official document, wherein cwts. are never used as a le-
gal and official expression of •weight.
A notus appears to contend that St. Domingo manu-
factures sugar enough for its own consumption. I
would then inquire; how -is that assertion to be reccsn-
ciled With the -fact, Which rests on the authority of
President Boy-er himself, so late as the 20th of Match,
1823, that sugar was smuggled into Hayti from Colo-
nies where it had been raised by Slaves, in direct oppo-
sition to the laws of that Republic ? If it ever be per-
- mined to form human opinions by inference,—how is
it to be supposed that it could answer, to introduce
foreign sugar into St. Domingo, with all her advantages
rf soil and climate, if she were enabled to grow enough
for her own domestic consumption, in the fair sense
of the term?

Let ANGLUS cease to suppose that the cause of the
Abolition of Slavery,—the cause of putting an end to
the worst form in which human society ever appeared,
• Here I must observe, that it appears only 374,00014. are said,
even•in the Haitian document, to have been sent to France. T 4
official documents of the linked Stites atid Great Abrltiiin Got-
agteeibg with the Ilaitiah docOment, is ibewn by the Reviewer,
now France is selected for illustration. The Reviewer hid not
noticed France In any 'manner.