it is contained in an article, which (though in the same treaty) is in order subsequent to that, by which Senegal was ceded to France; and you add, that another article intervenes upon a different subject, which statement to me appears inaccurate. In adjusting the rights of Britain and France upon the western coast of Africa, there were two important points, the slave trade, and the gum trade. The ninth article of the treaty of Versailles delivers Senegal, which supplied both these branches of commerce, into the hands of France; the tenth secures to Great Britain her slave trade by the guarantee of Fort James, and the eleventh secures her gum trade by stipulating for free access for that purpose to a part of the dependencies of Senegal. In this I discover no interruption of the subject, but on the contrary a clear and continued connexion. I know, Sir, the extent of your information on these subjects to be considerable, and I am certain, you cannot be ignorant, that Vattel, whom you have quoted, has* ably demonstrated that the whole of every treaty, though subdivided into several articles, is to be considered as one article; that there is a reciprocalness in its parts and engagements, which precludes their separation. One stipulation is made by the party, to whom it is detrimental, in contemplation of another, which is advantageous to him, without which the former might never have received his assent; and on this account the whole is to be considered as one article, though subdivided for the sake of greater distinctness. It appears then, according to the opinion

See Vattel, B. 2. Sect. 202. and B. 4. Sect. 49. and Grotius therein quoted.

of the most approved civilians, that, even if the connexion, which I have stated, between the above-mentioned articles had not existed, they must have been inseparably joined by the unity of the treaty; and of course that the stipulation in the eleventh article must act as a reservation on the cession in the ninth. Upon these grounds, and the premises in my former Letter, I contend, as before, that France held Senegal subject to certain British rights, and that the same estate, which she possessed there, is now restored to her.

Whether those rights can be annulled by the supposed abrogation of the treaty of 1763, remains to be examined ̧ You have suggested, that whatever rights we had, must have originated in the treaty of Paris, and that, by omitting to renew that treaty, we have forfeited our title; but I believe, you was not aware to what lengths that opinion would lead you. You probably did not reflect, that, maintaining this proposition, you must assert, that Canada, that Cape Breton, and Nova Scotia are surrendered by the peace to France, that Jamaica is now the property of Spain. All these, and others, which it would be vain to enumerate, conquered, like Senegal, by the arms of Britain, were ceded to her afterwards by treaties, which we have now omitted to But where is the man so wild in his opinions, so extravagant in his arguments, as to insist, that by this omission we have surrendered all our ancient acquisitions, and reduced ourselves within the narrow limits of the British coast? Our sovereignty in Senegal was acquired by conquest in 1758, and that sovereignty was acknowledged by France in the treaty of 1763; and, if conquest is not a title, I may be bold to say, that

renew.

there is no title to sovereignty in Europe, none perhaps in the habitable world. By "the law of nature, which "is the necessary law of nations," all acquisitions in a just war are good in the eyes of mankind; and who is he, that will venture to proclaim, that the war, in which we conquered Senegal, arising from the intricate confusion of unadjusted claims, was unnecessary or unjust? Great and glorious I know it was to the arms of Britain, nor have I ever found, that honour and honesty disclaimed her pretensions. That our rights over Senegal were derived solely from the treaty of 1763, was not admitted in my Letter, which expressly stated, that Great Britain held them by virtue of her conquest in 1758.

But, though I think the title by conquest paramount to that obtained by a subsequent treaty, I will further contend, that a cession by treaty gives a valid title for ever; which can be forfeited only by an infringement of some stipulation in the treaty, which conferred it; a case of forfeiture, however, which will not occur; for what belligerent powers ever avowed their own trespasses, and who shall decide upon the justice of their cause? I shall be told, that, if the right is founded on treaty, it cannot exist without the treaty; but the fact is, that the right is given by the delivery, and the treaty is the evidence of that delivery, which may be lost without ejecting the possessor. If it were otherwise, this absurdity would follow, that a cession without treaty by the simple act of delivery would be a better and surer title than one confirmed by seal and signature. For instance, if in full peace Great Britain had voluntarily surrendered the Falkland Islands to Spain, she never

could have renewed her claims to them; if she had in addition to this expressed that surrender in a written convention, the future omission of Spain to renew this, would according to your argument have amounted to a forfeiture, and the rights of Great Britain would have revived. Believing therefore, still, that the trade in Senegal accrued to us in 1758, was confirmed to us in 1763, was not ceded by the peace of Versailles, and will remain to us after the restoration of our late conquest, I thought it necessary to write thus much in vindication of my former arguments; and I trust, you will agree with me, that against the encroaching and tyrannous ambition of France we should cavil on the ninth part of a hair." Much has been yielded to her imperious will; but neither the cession of important stations, nor the mighty continental preponderance of France, has rendered this treaty so dishonourable and insecure, as the uncertain predicament in which it has left us; "Quod in ambiguo verbum jaculata reliquit." In this dangerous hour let Britain act with honesty, but with firmness; let her maintain inviolate her public faith, which has been too little regarded in the late transactions, but let not her ministers unnecessarily concede one iota of her ancient dignities, her ancient rights and commercial privileges. If they do, it is a jest to say, that they have consulted for the integrity of the British empire; for what greater or richer dominion did Britain ever possess, than the pure respect of Europe, and the valuable sources of her commercial wealth! I am, Sir, yours, &c. W. H.