The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-06-11 00:00:00

DIVIDENDS.

July 17, C. Hawksworth, Liverpool, licensed victualler.—June 28,
J. Buckley, Liverpool, cheese-factor.--June 29, R. Edden, Newgate-
street, tailor.—June 28, C. Holthouse, New-road, St. George's-in-the-
East, sugar-refiner.—June 28, G. Worth, Clerkenwell.green, licensed
victualler.—June 28, R. Levens, Drury-lane, coach-master.--June 28,
J. and J. H. West, Turner's-square, Hoxton, brewers.—July 3, J.
Doheon, jun. Darlington, Durham, linen-manufacturer.—July 1, W.
Moulton, Warwick, grocer.—October 30. S. Bennett, Horsley, Clio-
cestershire, ttock-int.rchant—June 28, W. Brough and S. Smith,
Sculcoats, Yorkshire, paint-manufacturers.—July 9, T. Peake,
Shrews'Jury, Shropshire, grocer.—June 28, J. Weddle, Sutton, York-
shire, paint-ma.nufacturer.—June 28; J. Swannell, Chatteris,' Cam-
bridgeshire, draper.

On the DUTY of the NATION at the PRESENT
CRISIS of the SLAVERY QUESTION.

(FROM THE WESLEYAN METHODIST MAGAZINE FOR JUNE.)

I fully admit the principle that man cannot have right.
fill property in his fellow man ; and that, therefore, when
the negro is removed from among the goods and chattels
of the planter, the planter cannot demand compensation
in the proper sense of the term. But while I maintain
these views, I do not approve of the pecuniary part of
the slavery question being regarded in the light of ma-
king compensation to the planters. I object to this view
of the subject, because it excludes all recognition of our
guilt as a nation in regard of slavery, and our conse•
quent obligation to share in those losses which may re-
sult from its-extinction. Had the evil of slavery been
introduced without the concurence of the nation ; had
the planters originated and perpetuated the system in op-
position to the national voice, and in defiance of our
legislative enactments; it might have been proper for us
under such circumstances to take the high ground which
the compensatory view of the subject assumes, and tell
the planters, that, as the sin had been all their own,
they also must bear all the loss attending the extinction
of their iniquitous system. But how can we occupy
this ground under the actual circumstances of the case ?
We have nationally participated in the guilt of slavery.
For several years, I grant, the planters have opposed
themselves to the nation, which was returning to a bet-
ter mind on the subject. I admit that they are deserv-
ing of the heaviest censures fur that opposition; but
are we, therefore, to forget our own previous deep na-
tional criminality ? Are we to turn away from the
humbling fact, that slavery has been nurtured and pro-
tected by our legislative enactments, and has for ge-
nerations
been sanctioned and participated in by the na-
tion at large ? If the planters are criminal, we are to
remember we have helped to make them so; and the
guilt of slavery attaches to us as a nation as well as to
the planters. How then can we tell the planters, " You
must bear all the loss ?" This language would be be-
coming only in those who have clean hands: it is not
fit for criminals to use to their partners in guilt. Here
is a number of unprincipled persons associated together
in carrying on a system of fraud and plunder,.when they
are detected, and stolen property is found in the posses-
sion of some of them. But would it avail the others
who had participated in the theft to argue, that those
only with whom the property was found ought to suffer the
penalty due to the offence ? The law would speak a dif-
ferent language; and would decide that they, sharing
in the guilt, must share in the punishment too. Now,
however homely and humiliating is this illustration, it
unhappily applies too well to our case as a nation. We
have helped the planters to steal the negro from his na-
tive soil; and the negro, the stolen property, is found
in the hands of the planter; and now that, in the or-
der of a retributive Providence, the offence is to be
visited for, and the stolen property is to be given up, we
must take our share in the consequences. This, I think,
is the true view to be taken of the subject. We can-
not assume the lofty bearing of a pure and sinless nation,
and, judge-like, denounce the planter, and leave him to
his fate. We are to look at the case as it really is : we
are to view ourselves as the fellow-criminals of the
planters; and if we are brought to a sense of the evil of
slavery a few years sooner than they, we ought to show
the sincerity of our repentance by our willingness to
bear our part in the pecuniary loss resulting from the ex-
linction of the iniquitous system which we have so long
cherished and promoted. Our doing this is not with me
a matter of taste, but of principle. An ingenious con •
fession of our national sin, and a readiness to share in
the burden which its removal may impose, would be most
in accordance with the spirit and requirements of Chris-
tianity, and would be most pleasing in the sight of God.
Confession of sin, repentance accompanied with its pro-
per fruits, is, I conceive, required by God from guilty
nations as well as sinful individuals. With such senti-
ments, I do not think that those who admit that the in-
terests of the planters must be attended to, go far enough
when they say, that the slaves must first be emancipated,
and that then the legislature ought to afford the West
India interest such assistance as it would extend to any
other branch of the community. This view of the sub-
ject is objectionable to me on the same ground as the
other, the compensatory view. Although it allows of
the planters having pecuniary assistance, it also excludes
all acknowledgment of our national sin. We see in it,
also, the port and bearing of a pure, high-minded nation
rescuing the captive from his thraldom, and then gene-
rously extending its mercy to the humbled and helpless
oppressor. Now all this is chivalrous enough; but it is
not the tone, the attitude, which the word of God would
teach us to assume. We have been the co-partners of
the oppressor of the negro. We have shared as a nation
in his crime • we ought therefore to. confess, it.; and,.
placing ourselves by his side, we ought to express our
willingness to share in his loss, as we have done in his
guilt.
The practical results of assuming our true character
as a nation, and adopting the language and determina-
tion becoming our circumstances, would be highly be-
neficial, conducing more than any thing else to the right
settlement of the whole question, by removing the prin-
cipal difficulty which now stands in the way of its ac-
complishment.

LAW REPORT.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH-THURSDAY,
_ REX Y. LORD TEYNHAM AND DONLAN.

Sir James Scarlett appeared to show cause against the rule
for a new trial which had been granted in this case. He un-
derstood that the ground on which the defendants applied for
that rule was that they were taken by surprise at the trial, by
the prosecutor not acknowledging signatures to letters which,
it was said, would have proved their innocence. Those letters
were not of much importance, as they did not disprove or af-
fect the direct testimony which had been given against the de-
fendants, and which was supported by their own letters. They
were not, therefore, likely to have induced the Jury to come to
a conclusion in the defendants' favour, as they did not explain
away what to him (Sir James Scarlett) were very suspicious
circumstances—viz., the fact of a peer of the realm making
fiequent applications to the Prime Minister for situations, and
at the same time writing letters to the prosecutor expressing a
certainty that he should meet with early success in his applica-
tion on his (the prosecutor's) behalf.
The Lord Chief Justice observed that the rule had been
granted on the ground of surprise, and suggested that it
would be better for the Learned Counsel to confine his argu-
ments to the point whether or not the Court were not bound to
submit the case, on the simple ground-of surprise, to the fur-
ther consideration of the Jury. _ _ _ _ _

Sir J. Scarlett remarked that he would abandon the argu-
ments which he had intended to adduce, and would confine
himself to the question which the Court pointed out. It ap-
peared that neither of the defendants were prepared with a sin-
gle witness to prove the signatures attached to documents
which were in their own possession, but that they trusted that
the prosecutor would admit them to be his hand-writing; and
that repose did they wish the Court to believe they placed on
the prosecutor, notwithstanding they had urged that the prose-
cutor was perjured. Their lordships were well aware that the
case was one of great importance, affecting the character of
both the defendants, but more particularly_ the honour of one
who moved in a high station. Was it then probable that they
were taken by surprise, when they failed to prove signatures
which they alleged to be the prosecutors ? or was it likely that
they were surprised at the prosecutor not identifying letters
which were to be used for the purpose of impeaching the testi-
mony which he had just given? The importance of proving
the signatures ought to have induced the defendants to have
been prepared with witnesses; but as they pretended that they
relied on the prosecutor, a person whom they charged with per-
jury, it could not be said that they were taken by surprise at his
refusinc, to acknowledge them to be in his handwriting. He
(Sir J.'Scarlett) submitted that the, defendant.; could not have
been taken by surprise, and he urged that the pretence they
now set up was one of the slightest that he had ever heard
brought forward in a Court of Justice, and was one, if admitted,
which would be extremely dangerous in practice.
Mr. Hutchins made a few observations on the same side.
Mr. Pollock, on behalf of Lord Teynham, rose to support
the rule for a new trial, but was stopped by
The Lord Chief Justice, who observed that, without ad-
mitting- any particular rule for granting new trials in cases
of surprise, the Court were of opinion that, under the circum-
stances, the letters in question and the case generally ought to
go before another Jury, for further consideration. The rule
must, therefore, be made absolute, on the payment of costs by
the defendants. _ _

•
Sir J. Scarlett expressed a hope that, as the prosecutor was
a very poor man, the trial would be appointed for the sittings
after the present Term.
Mr. Pollock was surprised at such an application being mafle
in such a manner, and trusted that the Court would not enter-
tain it.
It was ultimately agreed that a rule should be applied for in
the usual way.