{"character_count": 5285, "word_count": 900, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9617999792098999], "ccnet_perplexity": [1015.9000244140625], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
ENGLAND AN CHINA, OR, THE RIGHT BY GuN- powDER.-There is a class of men, pretending to be guided by notions of, what they call, justice and right who express great indignation at the conduct of the English nation towards the Cnese-i5nt these We take 10 bc of very narrow range oi intellect, They allow themselves to believe in certain antiquaed dognas, which might have been true in the days ol Adam, but which, by tis time, society has altogether outprown and, therefore, to attempt to coniine its action by these venerable prejudlces, would be like putting hale, robastious fellow ol forty years into the brcecll $ he wore at For instance, It was formerly thought that each nation had right to manage it's own internal affairs, pretty much as il peased provided it did not interfere with the in- terests oi it's nciyhbors Rutexperence has brought us to il better way of thinking, ,ld this silly doctrine has fallen into dlsuetude.

 The first principle of international law, as shown by the practice ui these modern times, s that the stronger nation has the right to hector weaker one whenever and in what manner 1t sees fit. IIie oris of this right is not mentioned by the standard author ulon the subject, such Puilendpr eirotins, Fatte &c, but it IS clearly laid down by that profound philosopher and inmit,bia historian, Diederlck kldekerbocker, Wlio wrote seracious narrative of the fortunes of this ely, from the creation o planetary system 10 the death of Peter tle liead- strong. He has been pleased to ca it with slneuai proprlety, "the right by gunpowder, and Jusifss it's legitimacy by the eAapie uI heafy all tue coiohstf oi thls country.

 Indeed, we may carry tine thing much further back than the good ir. Knckcibocker has done, and prove the legitacy of the right, by the constant practice of nsary every nation that bas attained respectable standing in society. From the time when the tn et sons of Naa set out 10 seek their fortunes, down td the recent demonstrations against the peace and pig tails of Canton it has been lesoutely asserted bj powerful nations. But 10 ascend no higher: wla were ali the conquests of Sesosris but an assertion of this right by ekterininaton! When Alexander overran the plains of Asia, subduing every people thai l f ,a Inc ri and when the Roman Legions spread the terror o their from Britan 10 the deserts of Africa, they were only carrying this great doctrine into effect How have Spain, Russia, France, and England acquired the greater part of their ioregn possessions Unluestionabiy, through ti.c flght by gunpowder What reason then, have these would-be wise o ours who affect turn up their noses at the Chinese war to condemn Great Britain for conduct perfectly accordant with the whole history of conquest, and particularly with all her own attempts In that inel

 We are happy to find that that practicable states man, John Quincy Adams, has thrown off the silly notions by which some are enrapped into truth and justice. He has lately been delivering lecture at Boston, in which he demonstrates to nicely, this important right by gunpowder Says the Boston Post:

 "The grounds assumed by the venerable lecturer were, in substance, that the Chinese were anti commercial, unti-social, and supercilious people that they would trade with nation except terms which admitted yassaage of the foreign power, ol 'ou-door barbarians' to the Emperor.-lte denied them the right 10 exclude other nations from the cprocal rights of trade, to establish humlliating monopoly through their Hong merchants, and to de- mand from all foreign ambassadors the degrading ceremony of the kouou, viz: knocking the forehead nine times on the ground in approaching the Empe- ror This k0n-toa, he contended, was the cause o the war, and not, as many people falsely supposed the opium question"

 "From these facts and the positions. assumed by the lecturer, his argument appeared to be, that if one nation claimed superiority over other nations, and refuse to trade negotiate with them on terms o reciprocity equality, the other nations had right to compel such equal intercourse by force of arms and in hIs view he regarded the war with China as part of the same great philanthfopic enterprise o Great Britain in putting an end to the slave trade and he trusted that she would stop until she had extended civilization and given freedom to the utmost borders of the AsIatc empire, and compelled the Chinese to acknowledge the reciprocal rights o other natlons.'

 If there were any room for doubt in regard to the force of these arguments it may be made clear by few simple illustrations. A man living m nei ghbor- hood of disagreeabe fellows, conceves plan of con- lining himself to his own house. Now, what can be painer than te right of his neighbors to bang hls doors and shatter his windows, for such sury con duet? Or man, as Mir. Petriken of Pennsylvania f,nces that his personal appearance Is improved by wearing his hair in a queue; what provocation to those who wear their hair in different fashion, and how much he deserves 10 have his brains blown out A gentleman minds his business, without suffer- ing his friends to undertake it for him what pesti- ferrous sef-depedence-what all insoent return for their kindnessl-[N. Y. Evening Post.

 