, 1841-07-03

To what is this letter an answer? IF to any
thing, it is 10 the letter Of Mr.. Forsyth ad'
dressed to Mr.. Fox on the 96th December
1910. / will not trouble the Senate to read
that PAPER. they may find it in document SO,
page 4. And what is the character of the
letter Of Mr.. Fox9 II commences with a
peremptory and conclusive settlement Of The
whole matter so far as the British Govern.
ment is concerned. 1t is not sufficient for
that Governments 70 say that ,hev take the
responsibility of the act of Mcleod uron
themselves, but they even justify in the
strongest terms the capture of the Caroline
itself. Yet here is Mr.. Webster. on the 24,h
of April. arguing a question which the Bri-
fish ministry had settled six weeks before
They do not say surrender Mcleod and the
question Of the Caroline shall be left open.
That would not be according to the manner
Of John Bull when he puts himself fairly in
motion. lie does not stop TO argue, bot at
once cuts the knot without the trouble of
giving any reason. Mr.. Stevenson had re-
monstrated in the most urgent manner, ard
had submitted to the British Government at
London n mass of testimony, but no notice
NtfitNtI WIS tdhCu " WIS COtiiiiub'Citi'is
and M reasons given for their determination.
Mr.. Fox, or rather that Government, in hull
a sentence settles the question.
/" The Transaction in question, Gays .he letter.
NAV have been a, hrr .Moj.tg's Gorsrnnent ere Of
opini'n that IL ras. a just fable employment IF Eree
far The purpose Of d.fndins The Brialt territory"
sc.
Our remnnstrance, when this Eauchty re-
ply was written, had been pending for three
years.
Mr.. Forsyth, in his letter Of 26ih Decem.
her. 1910, had argumen,aiively stated the
whole Case, setting forth that the avowal Of
McLnod's act. should il re assumed bv the
British Government, so far from doing away
our ground of complaint. went only to
increase it. II was cumulative, not excnipa.
Whist il would not relieve Mcleod
from personal responsibility, il would scri.
nusly implicatc 'hc British Government in
his guilt. And how is ;i:at argument answer
In this naughty impeiious sentence:
"iIer Majesty; Government cannot believe that
he Government; of the United States can really in
to set an example so frsucbt with evil to the
community of nations, and the direct tendency of
shich must be TO brin, intn the practice Of having
war atrocities which civilization i Chisti-
unity long SINCE banished."
Here is no argument: attempted, no au-
lhorrty cited. but a simple declaration nut
iorth in the strongest terms as to the .%.atroci.
the principle for which the American
Government, had been seriously contendinc.
Bu, the Growing point of this insulting LEI.
is yet to IN and | undertake 10 saw
it contains a direct threat from tine Bri.
ish Government. nm not extensively &C.
with the language of Diplomacy.
mt ! certainly have not seen anv thing like
his threat in anv official communication he.
ween civilized and friendly nations for The
asst fifty wears. hope | NAV be mistaken
n nv view Of the language. hut here i, is:
"snt be that as it may, her Maje.ty's Government
armaiiy demand upon the grounds already stated,
"v ln'neuia'e 'fira.e o. a. "G.eca' a"1 aer Ma
,a;.. 70 ,,Ls ;n,o ~. uaa., %srh...,a o. que ~
he ,,rious ma iur. If a, rons.cr,ners rt;ei MR., -.
ne from a rJ,cGoa Of hi, d-r,sndn
Watc"n>equrnres! !Ndiconsequcncesi
lfier the d-nunciitions we had heard in the
Parliament. and MI that had occurred
! the courseo the previoas correspondence.
onii any thing have been in,en led but "Ihe
nature Of the consequences which
ms, ensue" from ,p0r uifh EScI AMI