Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1843-07-28
MISCELLANEOUS
BRITISH CONSTRUCTION or THE LATE WEBSTER

TREATY.
We would fix the public attention on the construc
lion OF the clause in the late treaty which provides FOR
The mutual surrender of fuglves violating the laws
OF either country, and escaping into the other Lord
Aberdeen, the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs
thus expounds the treaty, and the law which he IS
having passed through Parliament for the purpose cf
giving effect 10 il. The English Minister says
10 escape from slavery crime. On the
contrary, the condition of slave endeayorlng 10
Z" escape was TO be regarded with much sympathy
he knew IT had been said that fugitive slave was
guilty Of robbery in carrying off The clothes he had
on which were the property of one who claimed 10
be the owner OF the slave but 10 take such clothes
was no theft Neither was lila theft, on The part of
:" fugitive slave, TO take away any thing that would
" aid him in his hlght-as, for exampl horse
I" boat"
We copied in yesterdays Globe the speech of Lord
Aberdeen, as it is to be found in the Wing papers,
with this passage carefully cut out and few stars
serted IN the line to mark the eson as of only word
or two Why this suppression was made by the pa.
pers which have extolied the Webster treaty. none
need be told il mnnItests the settled determination
of the British Parliament to make of the treaty lust
what they please, and shows that Lord Ashburlon' :
etler promising sort OF negative The part of
the British authorities in such cases as that of the Gre.
ole-a sort Of assertion Of the British laws which
they insist were properly applied protect the murder
ing slaves which escaped in the Creole-s now 10 be
adduced, not TO prevent for the future such crimes on
the part OF insurgent slaves seeking British protection:
but, on the contrary to furnish preext set aside
explicit clause in the treaty. so far il has application
10 demand for fugitive offenders against the law who
also happen 10 be fugitive slaves Lord Aberdeen
says j, is theft in slave ITO take away nyth;ny to
aid him in his fght-as, for example a horse or a
boat or lie itself, as in the of The Creole: for
he expressly declares, that Sin the case of the Creoe
the parties might have been tried for the piracy, but
not for the murder; that is 10 say the murder was
ustI6able TO enable tksm 10 escape and they could
nj be do nded hv
although they might have been tried for the
piracy of which they were accused, regards the yes
sci and it's cargo, by the British Government.
Upon this doctrine-which the bill before Parlia.
ment 10 carry out the treaty appes- slave should
kill his master, to prevent his pursuing him in his
Agh. TO Canada, such slave will be surrendered &c
the demand of our Government an offender against
our laws. Ii he steals horse, 10 aid his nirht it is
| TO theft So IT he takes any mans boat or ship, las
in the Of The Greeley effect an escape, it was
mo crime for which the culprit was 10 be consider.
ed punishable and den.andabe under the treaty.; but
he was on the contrary, 10 be "regarded with much
sympathy" Suppose body Of the wrelches held to
labor in The manufactures of England or apprentices
bound TO service for term Of years. should their
throat steal his horses 10 reach the coast and
should then steal ship and force The sailors to bring
them TO our shores-would not Lord Aberdeen eonsi.
der this to be an offence against the laws of England
and, under the treaty. case authorizing the English
Government 10 demand their surrender from the au.
thorities of the U. States; We think so
And what is the difference between the apprentice.
ship which holds people 10 service under masters in
| England, and the ownership under our laws which
binds people TO service here They are both arbitrary
municipal regulations, created by the Supreme Legs
laure Of The country binding certain classes of people
to labor for others, against their The right
of owners, 10 the service of the slaves is almost
verssly, in this country, from the circumstances from
which The ownership arises, better founded than thu,
of the owners Of apprentices in England. Here the
owner the slave from lis infancy having taken
Of its mother before it is born--furnshed it with
food, and clothes, and shelter, for years. before
capable of making any return in servce-and, if there
be anything in the laws established by the natural in
sncls, which have in all ages, given parents the right
10 command the services Of their children for some
years after their labor becomes useful then there must
be some natural right in the master, who has provided
for slave in its infancy, 10 command lis labor 10 some
extent afterwards. The apprenticeship in England
begins after The laborer has become pable Of service
and, for the mos, part, the wretch apprenced
out his life in service to which the master has
pre- vious title in consideration Of nurture, and receives
nothing throughout the whole term but bare subsist-
ence the labor imposed being far greater and the pro.
vision less than in the case of the American slave
But, according 10 Lord Aberdeen, if the kindly
tured slave reared in the family of American farm
err he gets strength and capacity TO shift for
himself turns his master, kills him instead of
pensating him for his kindness, flies with the clothes
upon him purchased by the master and steals his horse
to bring him under the jurisdiction Of the English
law,--this law holds him gul;less: j. is ''no crime,
although pronounced by the American law, which
the late treaty, it was pretended, would enforce The
offence is ''regardcd ,cih much sympathy" BY The
Englsh law: and this is sufficient 10 annul both ths
treaty and the American law Globe.