treat with them for purchasing their release? Is it because the mercenary oppressor was not an Irishman, that the virtuous indignation of the biographer is hushed and quiet upon this subject? Or is the frank and clear exposition of the villanous act, made by Sir John Moore, an inconvenient appendage to the observation, that 'true republicanism seems, at least in this country, to be an excuse for every species of treachery, want of faith, and common honesty?' Was that passage directed against the vices or the cause of the republicans? are there no ruffians within the pale of legitimacy? Never did the upright, the virtuous, just, and humane Sir John Moore stoop to be the pitiful slave of prejudices, where men's rights were before him; never did he learn to light his moral path by the torch of party spirit. That which was cruel and unjust he hated and repressed, without heeding if it were found beneath the white flag or the tri-color.
We write partly from memory, partly from notes, and can only give the substance of Sir John Moore's recorded opinions, not his words; but we admired his noble sentiments too much, not to treasure them fondly and deeply in our memory; and we pledge ourselves to the general truth of all that we are going to state. We say, then, that Sir John Moore, in his Journal, speaks with contempt and indignation of the emigrés in St Lucia, and of the proprietors of slaves; that he deplored the condition of their black slaves—that he threatened those emigrés with punishment for casting reflections on the submissive republicans—that he checked them for their ill treatment of the negroes—that he repeatedly assured the people, not only, as his biographer in his slight way says, that royalist or republican would be neither a merit or demerit with him, but that he suspected them of wishing for detachments of troops to enable them to tyrannize over the negroes,—a system which he abhorred, and would never permit. 'Why,' he exclaimed, 'is a man to be treated harshly because he is not white? All men are entitled to justice; and from me they shall meet it, whether they be white, black, royalist, or republican.' 'This language,' he says in another part, 'was not agreeable to his auditors, especially the emigrés; but he had no preference for them, and wished to curb their insolence; because, instead of profiting by their misfortunes, they had only whetted their prejudices, and thirsted to gratify their revenge and to oppress their fellow-creatures: coquins, canaille, bêtes, were expressions they habitually used towards every person of the lower classes.' Now, here is nothing to indicate that he judged all the villany of the day to attach to the republicans and blacks. The fact is, that whilst he in no manner mitigates his censure of the
