Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1825-12-09

Lords of the Admiralty. This claim was settled and
l'qnd"icd at London in 1885, at ee7, 600 s,cri,rg :,
having been compromised between Admiral Cockburp
representing Inc captors. and the agent of Mr. Oracle
W.T. N'rac'es second claim the British Govern
eh' rested ON the following facts He had obtained
'o" mat Government, TO protect vessels car
ys suppress oil bread stufs, to its troops in the Span
ie"'"Sua. These vessels 1--WE believe two in uum
'0'ueu at petersburg, or elsewhere on the waters
" INC Chesapeake. The Admiral of the English
''ooNaong squadron in the Chesapeake refused TO res
pN' e i'censes' and III consequence the flour perish
:" VI turned sour IN Mr.. Grace's hands. Mr. Grac;c
''cu from the Justice Of England, the loss he had
uS'a'hed by the conduct of her Admiral and he was
c'uaiy pau by England, the costs of the our deduct
'ng what 1t ultimately sold for, after turning sour
nS IS 'he ruin IN that matter. If il does no, dprove
All Tue deductions which Critic intended 10 he made from
us questions, then conceive no possihie state s
'ac's That wil And if The circumstances stated b ~,
DC uue' tand they are capable of immediate proof, il
'o'iows that Mr. King could have been influenced h,
no interested motives in accepting the mission tn Eng
and, or III procuring the appointment of his son,b
ne mas no iaRors 10 ask of that Government for biuse,
Oh iainy-ahd that he will not be expectod IN orr,
any IN return. Even if he sacrificed the interests of his
country sr private ends, one would think that tJe Son
s'e OF inc u States WIS competent 10 Judge of it. and
70 reect any improper treaty made by him. IL was NOT
BUSINESS however, TO remember any thing Which
might tend TO discredt his story.
"esaii not say any thing of the Irish story cbarsa
against Mr. King, and here renewed for the ao,h tno
~ Critic. We know nothing about il. Sill, Loo. A.
we mean 10 renew the Missouri Controversy mr. 70 do
lend the part which Rufus King took in it. One perh.r
OF Tie 9th query Of Critic, however, deserves notice
II IS, did lac not fling frebrana into our Pubc cow
CHS at The moment he left itan-Of the abs,raet nru
dcnce and proprcty of The celebrated Resolution
by Mr. King in the Senate, appropriate The publ;c
lands 10 aid emancipation we think l onr ,,,,o,
counirymen. On subject so delicate we o,o,+ =, 10
LEFT TO act at ouroBu time and in our own RI,
t'at Mr. hing intended 10 throw irehrand into tho
National Councis--that lie desired or ex ,,c,4 -
duee the least uneasy sensation by his proposition w
do not hcIieyeand if solemn declarations nm Ne
are TO be credited, tie suppuston is entirely upust I'd
nn' W. so5eleye on The contrary, that II was
ed from desire of concihotig the Southern State.
and in spirit entirely disinterested VIVA, ,v,s ho
proposition In substance 10 set apart source of
Venue belonging TO he rhofe Union. for The use IF
particular section Of it, in the mode and al Che t,o
-" '''S eesi'e 10 employ II: Now we aver,
mat on lis face nothing can be liberal Than this
propositions and how it can be tortured into bearing
inherent meaning, no man could conjecture from his
u"assisied reason To those who know what SORT of
means, politicians who have real ability resort 70 for
The purpose of gaining retaining popularity by min
's'eng 10 ignorance, prejudice and fear there is no
secret about ii. That lie good people of Virginia
1''nid safer themselves TO be friged with such bag
bear, is however, little rcmaI kabIe
The publication Of Critic well timed. HIS cal
ouaiion was dat no reply coud reach Washington
from New York, before The Senate had acted on Mr..
hins's nomination This, to be sure, was true Yireii
an generosity and masnanimity.
suggest it to the Editors of the Enquirer if strict
"s'icc does not require them t2 rcpubIsh these answers
to Cros questionste authority for which, here fsc,
is stated, is al our command