Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1819-06-29

hoNei upon tne minus Oi llOSH humane
aud just politicians, who could disc yer
nothing last WINTER IN Congress ia this
horrible doctrine, but tyranny, murder.
| and violation OF all laws divine and hui
man = &c. &c" Rui n is ninriii\ ing 10
us, as higt minded ind pendent uatiou,
10 perceive That the ministers of the king,
whose causr our citizens have been sup
porting, now thrust their Ioiiy inio their
very teeth, not only by rejecting their
protier'.d sympathy and support, bar tell
ing them In paipable language that they
we're ignorant and anew nothing at tile
matter. The motion of The Matquis of
Lansdown Tor enquiry after some OBJ
servations from Lord Liverpool, was ne
gaiivrd without IA dissenting roice. What
dreadful reflection upon our last winters
business
We regret 10 see snck remarks in so
respectable apaper.-Tne $. niimcn,s are
not characterized by its usual liberaliiy
and correctnt S.
Ii Is not true that the British m MIS-
tiers openly avowed that according to
national taW ire Wsre right No. They
say, thai they could not act in IL (; that
Arbuihnni and AmbriSier had put them
selves out at TIE protection OF Me,r OWn
COVE, hmeni, by iom,ng with "a foreign
power; that howevercruel the severity 10
which they had been doomed, their own
country had no right 10 demand a retribu-
ton, which could only be required at The
hazard ola war.-They do no, discuss the
Conduct ot Gen. Jackson, in relation TO ma
tiona law Earl Bot lriist ONLY a. e
who squinis it. He says il is principle
admitted by the law oi nations, and wh'cii
IN the policy OF natinns is Frequently
adapted, To holi 4 foreigner liable 10
military punishment If the party by whom
he was taken, choose TO carry The rights
at war 10 that cruel severity" But Lord
b. does not say, that by This principle,
Arbuthnot and Ambrist,r ought To have
been rut 10. death. This principle was
admitted last winter by The consumers 81
Gen. J. to apply TO cases OF urgent neces-
slty but they contended that at the
moment OF their execution, and under all
the circumstances OF the case, their exc
cutiJn was cruel, and not justified by the
principle OF the law of nalions.-But ask
these British ministers what they think
of General Jackson. Ask them whether
they do approve OF his conduct; and wiat
do they tell Won?
Earl Bathurst says that the fate OF
these unfortunate men formed question
10 he settled between the government OF
the U. States and It's commander, and not
between the two nations; that as TO The
conduct of Gen. Jackson in setting the
laws OF the UuitedSta at defiance, thai
was an offence for which he was account
able To his ewn government: that such
conduct in a military commander certain
" would not be passed over IN this couil-
try, nor did he suppose III any that pre-
tended To freedom thar he trusted that
no ShptlI no ha dot
the conduct of Gen. Jackson, or as ap
proving the sentence by which our coun-
trymen suffered. There was not he be
lieved, an individualamongt their lordslips
| IN the house, there was not man in the
country, there was not humane or I'M
partial citizen III America, who would not
| UNITE IN condemuIng his airociUus and
| uniusiitiabie acts"
The Earl ct Liverpool "did not hesitate
30 say that Gen. Jackson exhibited acts
| OF as violent and as outrageous Il nature
as could be found in history-acts Tor
which he was Irresponsible To God and his
country; and yet, considering the disiiuc
| ton he had made, they might not he OF
| kind 10 Justify demand OF repsration
frem this country. 10y With regard to the
| commutatiou of the sentence OF Ambris-
| ter, and The infection OF severe punish.
mentwhen the court had awarded "a minor,
IL was impossible TO speak OF il without
horrors
Forour parts we pay very little respect
TO these sentiments of British Ministers,
but let the National Advocate take the
evidence of his own cited witnesses for
what they are worth. Tie is welcome to
all the panegyric which they pay 10 Gen.
| Jackson.
Ifthere were any American editors who
supported the cause of The king" prof
| tered their sympathy, and wished them
io interfere, he cannot say il WAS the Edi
tor of this paper, and yet this paper was
| the first who dared 10 arraign Gen. Jack
| son. CThe Advocate would have been
more Just by dealing in less general ex-
| pressions.) So lar were we from indnIg-
| ing such sentiments, that we always CON
| tended the British government had moth
| ing 10 say III the business; that these
| men had placed themselves beyond IFS
| protection; and gave II no right 20 infer
| fere. This, n seems, Is the very ground
| which that government has taken, and
| most wisely. We are glad Of it. What
| we commended for was, that Gen. Jackson
| ought To- have answered 10 his own gov
| erpmeut for his deeds that he had dis
| obeyed his orders, iramprled upon the
| constitution, nisapplied the law of va
lions, and violated martial law. These are
| points on which we would never think o.
| consulting the BaihurSts and the Liver
! pools but they are precisely The ones
| which constitute the whole gist of the
| question.
Not " dissenting roice THE moiior
| was mcgaiivcd witkOm a d;risio,l BIN; j.
this Tie same thing Very far from il.
Taken mom,be sketch Of the debate published il
the London Courier of May rs.