The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser. — 1825-01-27 (London, England)

AMERICAN CONGRESS.  HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DEC. 47. NI GARA SUFFERERS. flr. TRACT moved a Committee of the House on the Niagara ,ferers• Indemnification Bill. `llr. WILLIAM, of North Carolina, opposed the bill, contend. 1 that the knowledge that the State would not indemnify for ores from an enemy, would produce a stronger determination in je citizen soldier on the frontiers to exert himself in repelling that awe. NV ith respect to the question of retaliation he said—l nay, so 1 hope to prove, hest, that the destruction of Newark war not 3 canton act ; and, secondly, that the enemy had not the least o kt to retaliate it. If the Gentleman had directed his views a orle farther on the subject, he would have been able to perceive od to trace the same predatory spirit which led to the devastation jig's Niagara frontier, preirailing through both our wars with Ergland. In the war of the Revolution, as well as throagh all de stages of our late contest, they were actuatcl by the same raper towards us. In suponrt of this position, Mr. W. went lea a series of quotations from the history of both wars—referred die conduct of the British army under Cornwallis, and whet joi by the traitor Arnold—to the burning of Falmouth, the ra'song of New Jersey, and the cruelties on board the Jersey pooh-ship, in which 11,000 men were said to have perished. he then proceeded to the conduct of Admiral Cockburn, at isenchtown, Havre de Grace, Georgetown, Fredericktown, and iompton, interposing comments as he proceeded, and arguing, torn the whole, the presence of a mean, dastardly, malignant, onit of revenge and personal cruelty. " Now," said Mr. W. I put it to the Gentlemen from New York to say, after all I.:s series of conduct, from February to May, 1813, whe:ler the destruction of one village, eight months afterwards, could he considered as a wanton act of aggression ? so, Sir, no; if the American army, instead of bunting the ollage of Newark, had laid waste, with lire and sword, the whole Camadian frontier, they would have inflicted an act of ritaliation wed merited by the barbarities perpetratej at 'lampro alone. But was this an act of our Government ? The Govern. gent disavowed the act the moment they heard of it. IFas this as act of wanton destruction, done for its own sake, and "parallel to the British murders and revishings in the Chesapeake ? It was a purely military movement, necessary to the destruction of Fort George—deliberate notice was sent to the inhabitants, and time allowed them to remove their persons and effects. As a pretended retaliation for such an :,et, the enemy landed on the 16th, burnt Lewistown, Youngstown, Maneheater, and even the little r:ilage of the Tuscarora Indian,. No notice was given—no time to removal of goods, or even for personal escape ; and so far *WI the injury from being confined even to those village'', that the 'mole country was fired and laid waste ; they burned, they ravaged every object they you'd reach ; but I cannot preserve a due coinmord of my feelings, when I reflect on 'how scenes. Sir, we till the same thing from 76 to 1815--the same conduct, the same spirit; id, with facts like these within their knowledge, the Committee of tiaims did rightiii denying, as I now deny, all right on the part ache envoy, to waste that frontier on the principle of lawful retaliation, and the consequent right of the claimants on that drowid.“ 31r.