We have said that the American democrats breed slaves for the shambles, and kill them at their pleasure. The Spartan republicans used to kill off their superabundant slaves, as a matter of state policy; but the American democrats, it appears, may kill their slaves as a matter of individual convenience, revenge, or caprice. Witness an advertisement, copied from one of their newspapers by Mr. STURGE:

"One hundred dollars is subscribed and will be punctually paid by the citizens of Onslow to any person who may safely confine in any gaol, in this State, a certain negro man, named Alfred. The same reward will be paid if satisfactory evidence is given of his having been killed. He has one or more scars caused by his having been shot."

It is clear this slave had been a target for the democratic riflemen before. This, indeed, is the " dignity of human

nature." Again :

"Ran away, my negro man Richard. A reward of 25 dollars will be paid for his apprehension dead or alice-satisfactory proofs will only be required of his having been killed. He has with him, in all probability, his wife Eliza, who ran away from Colonel THOMPSON, now a resident of Alabama, about the time he commenced his journey to that state.”

Here are rewards offered publicly, and, it appears, according to the law of the United States, for assassination! As to the unfortunate negro, Richard, if he deserved death by hatchet, bowie knife, or rifle, for running away alone, he deserved a double death for running away to join his wife. His crime was two-fold! he obeyed the instinct of nature, in endeavouring to recover the liberty that God had given him; and he yielded to the affectionate impulses of the human heart, in seeking to regain the society of his lost wife. The Spartans were pagans, but it is a "Christian" people of whom we find these execrable atrocities recorded by their own hands, and in their own "Free Press."

But what will the British public say of the following law in the code of Lousiana :-"The penalty for instructing a free coloured person in a Sabbath-school is, for the first offence, 500 dollars for the second offence, death." This "law" cannot be either of earth, or Heaven. It must be the inspiration of another place. It breathes the very essence of diabolism. Let the cruelties of NICHOLAS in devoted Poland henceforth give way to the superior barbarity of American legislation !

We have given a specimen of a democratic law. Now, let us give a specimen of a democratic legislator. We find it recorded that Mr. Preston, in debate on the floor of the Senate of the United States, said-without reproof, "Let an abolitionist come within the borders of South Carolina :-if we can catch him, we will try him, and—notwithstanding all the interference of all the governments on earth, including the federal government-we will hang him." Again: Mr. Hammond, a member of Congress from South Carolina, used on the floor of Congress the following language:-" I warn the abolitionists-ignorant, infatuated barbarians as they are that if chance shall throw any one of them into our hands, he may expect a felon's death." It is also a great crime to instruct slaves in the BIBLE, and in some States a free coloured man may be flogged for teaching his own child [if the mother is a slave].

We must stop, not for want of instances to further exemplify the monstrous system of studied cruelty, which is practised in republican America against the most helpless of mankind. Our space fails-not our materials. But power

so stained with crime cannot prosper, for "verily there is a GOD that judgeth in the earth."

British India-Caubul.-Nov. 2, 1839.

As the smoke of British victory achieved over the Affghan barbarians clears away, we are enabled to perceive other flames of commotion and war breaking forth to engage the arms, and drain the treasure of the Anglo-Indian government. Though the triumph over DOST MAHOMED has been accomplished without much loss in battle, and though the Rajah of SATTARA has been deposed without any bloodshed, yet these events seem rather the beginning than the end of a series of troubles which vicious policy and misgovernment have prepared for our eastern empire. The intrigues of Russia, working on the discontent of native subjects and allies, have not yet borne their full fruit. The throne of Caubul is safe for our vassal, Shah SOOJAH, as long as a British army remain in Affghanistan to prop it

with their bayonets; but, like a King forced upon a people by a foreign power, his sovereignty will have a very precarious tenure when left to the support of native resources. A victory gained in a dashing style of English bravery over even barbarian troops may dazzle the public mind for a short time, and make people slow to condemn the viciousness of the policy, which has caused England to wage "a little war" on the late Affghan ruler. But the time may come when England will have to repent the ill-advised and rash policy which prompted the campaign, supposed now to be at an end. * That the defeat of the deposed barbarian chief will place upon the brows of the Indian VICEROY any laurels that will last, we greatly doubt. Coming events will determine whether Lord AUCKLAND'S policy has preserved, or more endangered our Indian empire.

* *

As to the dethronement of the Rajah of SATTARA it does not follow, because it was effected without bloodshed, that it was, therefore, a wise act. That chief must have been strongly possessed with the consciousness of having suffered serious and unredressed wrongs from the Anglo-Indian government, seeing that he preferred dethronement and exile, to submission to the terms dictated by that government. *** It is true the brother of the deposed Rajah is raised to the sovereignty of the Sat tara State, and Sir J. R. CARNAC, in his proclamation, disclaims, on behalf of the Anglo-Indian government, all views of advantage and aggrandizement; yet we are told that the new Rajah, who has no children, is not to be allowed to adopt any, according to eastern custom, and "consequently the Sattara territory will, at his death, be annexed to the dominions of the East India Company." We wish the East India Company were more anxious to govern well and wisely the vast dominions which they already possess, than ambitious of adding other territorial acquisitions to their already enormous empire. What is the reason that the native princes of India are desirous of

[Shortly after this was written, as the date will show, news arrived of the commencement of those disasters which annihilated the British army in Caubul. ED.]

severing themselves from alliance with, or dependence, on the British power?

Anxious for the stability of our eastern empire, and wishing to see India, instead of a vast battle-field, or an arena for the marching and countermarching of armies, a scene of peaceful and contented industry, we implore its rulers to be wise in time to cultivate moderation rather than conquest-to remove the system of rapacity and oppression under which a hundred millions of people groan-and to raise an unassailable dominion on the eternal foundations of justice.

แ

Parliamentary Privilege.-Nov. 14, 1839.

THE part which we originally took on the great question of "Privilege" v. Law, renders it unnecessary to assure our readers of the high gratification which we derive from the new victory achieved for constitutional principles by the honest, impartial, and fearless conduct of a BRITISH JURY. From the shield of that protection which a jury extends over the rights of British subjects, the "thunders" of future vengeance-launched last session by the democratic arm of the legislature against all who should call its assumed privilege in question-have glanced powerless, just as we anticipated, leaving that buckler of our liberties still bright and unbroken. Though the case of "Stockdale v. Hansard" was, originally, but an action of libel brought by an individual against the printer of the House of Commons, it has assumed the importance and magnitude of a question of imperial interest. It involves some of the most momentous considerations that have engaged the public attention of late years, or that have become the subject of judicial cognizance and parliamentary discussion. Narrow, indeed, is the view of this question which limits it to a mere case of libel between the parties named in the record, or even between the plaintiff and the House of Commons. It has extended in its principle and consequences far beyond a case of libel between any parties. Out of it has arisen an assertion of "privilege" by that legislative body, of whom Mr. HANSARD, is the printer,

which amounts to this,-that the arbitrary will of the HOUSE OF COMMONS is superior to the LAW OF THE LAND.

Here then is a tyranny asserted-a tyranny not the less dangerous and detestable because it is democratic. With such a power vested in the House of Commons, a free government could not co-exist. True freedom exists in settled laws and well-defined powers. If any "order" in the state had a power beyond the law-a power undefined and discretionary, and therefore only limited by an arbitrary will, that order would constitute a tyranny.

In the series of leading articles† which we wrote upon the question at issue between Lord DENMAN and the House of Commons, in the month of February, 1837, we argued, according to our knowledge of constitutional law, to show the illegal as well as dangerous nature of the claim of privilege set up by the House of Commons-a claim that, if admitted, would leave the liberties, the properties, and even the lives of British subjects, at the capricious disposal of a tyrant-majority of the House of Commons.

The resolutions passed by that House following up the report of their select committee on privilege, went the length-not indeed in express terms, but by necessary implication-of asserting for the House of Commons a perfect immunity, not merely for vending libels, but for the commission of any crime which it might please its "omnipotence" to perpetrate or sanction. Greater tyranny than this, was never reduced to practice by the most despotic of the TUDORS, nor punished in the person of the weakest of the STUARTS.

We defied the menaces of the House of Commons when it resorted to the most imperious language of intimidation on the subject of its assumed privilege, previously to the former verdict in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard. We described that alleged

[+ See Morning Herald, Feb. 21, et seq., 1837. We exceedingly regret that the limits of the present volume preclude the re-printing of the articles referred to, or of those written subsequently in 1839, and 1840: but the report of Mr. Sydney TAYLOR's Speech at the Guildhall of the City, Feb. 7, 1840, will be found at p. 490. ED.]