telle, Schenck, Schoolcraft, Siddon, Silvester,Sprague, Thad. On the 12th of September, the House passed Stevens, Stetson, Sweetser, Jacob Thompson, Tuck, Van Dyke, Venable, Vinton, Waldo, Wallace, Wentworth, the bill, without debate, under the action of the previous question moved by Mr. Thompson, Woodward-97. The bill for the admission of California, of Pa. passed in the Senate, Aug. 13th, by a vote of 34 to 18, viz.: Arrs-Messrs. Baldwin. Bell, Benton, Bradbury, Bright, Cass, Chase, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dickinson, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Houston, Jones, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Seward, Shields, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Upham, Wales, Walker, Winthrop, Whitcomb.-34. NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Barnwell, Berrien, Butler, Clemens, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Foote, Hunter, King, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, and Yulee. -18. The vote stood, ayes 109; nays 75, as follows: YEAS-Messrs. Albertson, Alston, Ash, Averett, Bay, Bayly, Beale, Bissell, Bowdon, Bowie, Bowlin, Boyd, Breck, A. G. Brown, W. J. Brown, Buel, Burt, J. A. Caldwell, J. P. Caldwell, Clingman, W. R. W. Cobb, Colcock, Daniel, Deberry, Dimmick, Dunham, Edmundson, Eliot, Ewing, Featherston, Fuller, Gentry, Gerry, Gilbert, Gorman, Green, Harris, Haymond, Hibbard, Hilliard, Hoagland, Holladay, Hall, Hamilton, Haralson, J. G. Harris. S. W. Harris, T. L. Holmes, Houston, Howard, Hubbard, Inge, J. W. Jackson, A Johnson, J. L. Johnson, R. W. Johnson, Jones, Kaufinan Kerr, La Sere, Leffler, Littlefield, Job, Mann, Marshall, Mason, McClernand, McDonald, McGaughey, McLanahan, Miller, Millson, Morton, Orr, Outlaw, Owen, Parker, Peaslee, Phelps, Powell, Richardson, Robbins, Jr., Ross, Savage, Messrs. Alston, Ash, Averett, Bayly, Beale, Bowdon' Seddon, Sheppard, Stanley, F. P. Stanton, R. H. Stanton, Boyd, A. G. Brown, Burt, Cabell, G. A. Caldwell, Clingman, Taylor, Thomas, Jacob Thompson, John Thompson, James W.R. W. Cobb, Colcock, Daniel, Deberry, Edmunson, Green, Thompson, Toombs, Venable, Walden, Wallace, Watkins, Featherston, Haralson, S. W. Harris, J. G. Harris, Hilliard, Wellborn, Wildrick, Williams, Woodward, Young.-109. Holladay, Howard, Hubbard, Inge, J. W. Jackson, R. W. NAYS-Messrs. Alexander, Allen, Baker, Bennett, Bing, Johnson, Kaufman, La Sere, McDowell, McMullen, Mc-ham, Booth, Briggs, Burrows. T. B. Butler, J. Cable, Calvin, Queen, McWillie, Meade, Millson, Morse, Morton, Orr, Campbell, Carter, Chandler, Cole, Corwin, Cowell, Dickey, Outlaw, Owen, Parker, Powell, Savage, Seddon, Sheppard, F. P. Stanton, R. H. Stanton, Thomas, J. Thompson, Toombs, Venable, Wallace, Wellborn, Woodward. It passed the House, Sept. 17th, by a vote of F. S. McLean, McMullen, McQueen, McWillie, Meade, 150 to 56. Those who voted Nay, were, Disney, Dixon, Doty, Duncan, Durkee, N. Evans, Fitch, Fowler, Freedly, Giddings, Gott, Gould, Halloway, Hamp ton, Harlan, Hay, Hebard, Henry, Howe, Hunter. W. T. On the 14th of August, the Senate passed the King, Horace Mann, Matterson, McKissock, Meacham, Jackson, Julien, G. G. King, J. G. King, J. A. King, Preston bill organizing the Territory of New Mexico Moore, Morris, Nelson, Otis, Pitman, Putnam, Reed, Robinby a vote of 27 to 10, as follows, son, Root, Rumsey, Sackett, Sawtelle, Schumaker, Schoolcraft, Silvester, Sprague, Thad. Stevens, Stetson, Thurman, YEAS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Berrien, Benton, Brad-Tuck, Underhill, Vinton, Waldo, Wentworth, Whittlesey, bury, Bright, Cass, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Wood, Wright.-75. Downs, Felch, Houston, Hunter, King, Mangum, Mason, The next bill considered in the Senate was Norris, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Shields, Sturgeon, Under- that for abolishing the slave trade in the Diswood, Wales, Whitcomb.-27. NAYS-Messrs. Chase, Davis of Mass., Dodge of Wis., trict of Columbia. Mr. Seward proposed a subGreene, Hamlin, Miller, Phelps, Uphan, Walker, and stitute abolishing slavery itself in the District, Winthrop.-10. and advocated its passage in a speech of reIn the House, it was united, and passed with markable boldness and eloquence.* His subthe Texas boundary bill, by a vote as before stitute was rejected. Ayes 5—Nays 46. stated. AYES-Chase, Dodge of Wis., Hale, Seward, and Upham When this bill was before the Senate, Mr.-5. Chase moved to add the Wilmot Proviso, which was lost by a vote of 20 to 25, as follows: AYES-Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Bright, Chase, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dodge of Wis., Felch, Greene, Hale, Hamlin, Miller, Norris, Phelps, Shields, Sinith, Upham, Walker, Whitcomb, Winthrop.-20. NAYS-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Bell, Benton, Berrien, Cass, Davis of Miss., Dawson, Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Houston, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales.-25. Messrs. Dickinson and Seward on this, several other votes paired off, owing to necessary absence of one or the other. and the On the 23d of August, the Fugitive Slave Bill was passed in the Senate, by a vote of 27 to 12, as follows: AYES-Messrs. Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Davis of Miss., Dodge of Iowa, Downs, Foote, Hous ton, Hunter, Jones, King, Mangum, Mason, Pearce, Rusk, Sebastian, Soule, Spruance, Sturgeon, Turney, Underwood, Wales, Yulce.-27. NAYS-Messrs. Baldwin, Bradbury, Chase, Cooper, Davis of Mass.. Dayton, Dodge of Wis., Greene, Sinith, Upham, Walker, Winthrop.-12. Senators Douglas and Dickinson, both subsequently declared that they approved the bill, and would have voted for it if they had not been prevented, the former by absence, and the latter by having paired off with Mr. Seward. ton. Berrien, Bright, Butler, Clay, Davis of Mass., Davis The original bill passed on the 14th of September, by a vote of 33 to 19, as follows: AYES Baldwin, Benton, Bright, Cass, Chase, Clarke, Clay, Cooper, Davis of Mass., Dayton, Dickinson, Dodge of Wis., Dodge of Iowa, Douglas, Ewing, Felch, Fremont, Smith, Spruance, Sturgeon, Underwood, Wales, Walker. Green, Gwin, Hale, Hamlin, Norris, Jones, Seward, Shields, Whitcomb, Winthrop-33. NAYS-Atchison, Badger, Barnwell, Bell, Berrien, Butler, Mason, Morton, Pratt, Sebastian, Soule, Turney, Yulee Davis of Miss., Dawson, Downs, Hunter, King, Mangum, -19. The bill passed the House, Sep. 17th, by a vote of 124 to 59. The Nays, were: Messrs. Alston, Anderson, Ash, Averett, Bayly, Bowdon Bowie, A. G. Brown, Burt, E. C. Cabell, G. A. Caldwell. J. P. Caldwell, Clingman, W. R. W. Cobb, Colcock, Deberry, Edmundson, A. Evans, Ewing, Featherston, Green, Hamil ton, Haralson, J. G. Harris, S. W. Harris, Holladay, Howard, Hubbard, Inge, J. W. Jackson, A. Johnson, Jones, Kaufman, McQueen, Millson, Morse, Orr, Outlaw, Parker, Phelps, PowKerr, La Sere Marshall, McDowell, R. McLane, McMullen, ell, Savage, Seddon, F. P. Stanton, R. H. Stanton, A. H. kins, Williams, Woodward.-59. Stephens, Thomas, J. Thompson, Venable, Wallace, Wat * See Works of W. H. Seward, Vol. I. J. S. Redfield, Publisher. 2 The several acts of Congress embraced in this 3. An act for the admission of the State of series of measures were five in number. California. This has no reference whatever 1. An act proposing to the State of Texas to slavery; the Constitution of the State, howthe establishment of her northern and western ever, prohibited it. boundaries, the relinquishment by the said State 4. An act to amend and supplementary to the of all territory claimed by her exterior to said act entitled "An act respecting fugitives from boundaries, and of all her claim upon the justice and persons escaping from the service United States, and to establish a Territorial of their masters," approved February 12, 1793. Government for New Mexico.-[September 9, -[September 16, 1850.] 1850.] In the fifth clause of the first section of said act is the following proviso, introduced on the motion of Mr. MASON, of Virginia, viz. 5. An act to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia.-[September 20, 1850.] These five acts constitute what are called the compromise measures of 1850. 66 'Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to impair or qualify any thing contained in They renew the Missouri compromise in rethe third article of the second section of the 'joint re-gard to the territory north of 36° 30'; agree to solution for annexing Texas to the United States,' ap- admit New Mexico and Utah as States when proved March 1, 1845, either as regards the number prepared, with or without slavery, as the people of States, that may hereafter be formed out of the thereof may determine in their respective State State of Texas or otherwise." In the second section, establishing the Territory of New Mexico, is the following proviso: "And provided, further, That when admitted as a State, the said Territory, or any portion of the same, shall be received into the Union, with or with out slavery, as their Constitution may prescribe." Constitutions; admit California with her Constitution as presented, prohibiting slavery within the State; abolish the slave trade within the District of Columbia; and enact more stringent measures for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Mr. DOUGLAS, in his amendment to the Nebraska bill now pending, declares that this 2. An act to establish a Territorial Govern- legislation is "inconsistent with the Missouri ment for Utah.-[September 9, 1850.] This compromise of 1820," and therefore "inopeact contains the same provision in regard to rative and void." And upon this issue the deslavery as the preceding. bate is proceeding in the Senate. THE COMPROMISES OF 1850. SPEECH OF THE HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, IN THE SENATE, MARCH 11, 1850. ON THE ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA. THE resolution, submitted by Mr. BENTON, proposing to instruct the Committee on Territories to introduce a bill for the admission of California, disconnected from all other subjects, being under consideration MR. SEWARD rose and said: MR. PRESIDENT: Four years ago, California, a Mexican Province, scarcely inhabited and quite unexplored, was unknown even to our usually immoderate desires, except by a harbor, capacious and tranquil, which only statesmen then foresaw would be useful in the oriental commerce of a far-distant, if not merely-chimerical, future. of Mexican States, and stipulated, by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that the territory should be admitted by States into the American Union as speedily as possibly. But the letter of the objection still holds. California does come without having obtained a preliminary consent of Congress to form a Constitution. A year ago, California was a mere military de- But Michigan and other States presented themselves pendency of our own, and we were celebrating with in the same unauthorized way, and Congress waived unanimity and enthusiasm its acquisition, with its the irregularity, and sanctioned the usurpation. Calinewly-discovered but yet untold and untouched min-fornia pleads these precedents. Is not the plea sufcral wealth, as the most auspicious of many and unficient? paralleled achievements. To-day, California is a State, more populous than the least and richer than several of the greatest of our thirty States. This same California, thus rich and populous, is here asking admission into the Union, and finds us debating the dissolution of the Union itself. No wonder if we are perplexed with ever-changing embarrassments! No wonder if we are appalled by ever-increasing responsibilities! No wonder if we are bewildered by the ever-augmenting magnitude and rapidity of national vicissitudes! But it has been said by the honorable Senator from South Carolina, [Mr. CALHOUN,] that the Ordinance of 1787 secured to Michigan the right to become a State, when she should have sixty thousand inhabitants, and that, owing to some neglect, Congress delayed taking the census. This is said in palliation of the irregularity of Michigan. But California, as has been seen, had a treaty, and Congress, instead of giving previous consent, and instead of giving her the customary Territorial Government, as they did to Michigan, failed to do either, and thus practically refused both, and so abandoned the new community, under most unpropitious circumstances, to anarchy. California then made a Constitution for herself, but not unnecessarily and presumptuously, as Michigan did. She made a Constitution for herself, and she comes here under the law, the paramount law, of self-preservation. SHALL CALIFORNIA BE RECEIVED? For myself, upon my individual judgment and conscience, I answer, Yes. For myself, as an instructed representative of one of the States-of that one even of the States which is soonest and longest to be pressed in commercial and political rivalry by the new Commonwealth-I answer, Yes. Let California come in. In that she stands justified. Indeed, California Every new State, whether she come from the East is more than justified. She was a colony, a military or from the West-every new State, coming from colony. All colonies, especially military colonies, whatever part of the continent she may-is always are incongruous with our political system, and they welcome. But California, that comes from the clime are equally open to corruption, and exposed to opwhere the West dies away into the rising East-pression. They are, therefore, not more unfortunate California, that bounds at once the empire and the continent-California, the youthful queen of the Pacific, in her robes of freedom, gorgeously inlaid with gold-is doubly welcome. And now I inquire, first, Why should California be rejected? All the objections are founded only in the circumstances of her coming, and in the organic law which she presents for our confirmation. 1st. California comes UNCEREMONIOUSLY, without a preliminary consent of Congress, and therefore by usurpation. This allegation, I think, is not quite true; at least not quite true in spirit. California is here not of her own pure volition. We tore California violently from her place in the Confederation in their own proper condition than fruitful of dangers to the parent Democracy. California, then, acted wisely and well in establishing self-government. She deserves, not rebuke, but praise and approbation. Nor does this objection come with a good grace from those who offer it. If California were now content to receive only a Territorial charter, we could not agree to grant it without an inhibition of Slavery, which, in that case, being a Federal act, would render the attitude of California, as a Territory, even more offensive to those who now repel her than she is as a State, with the same inhibition in the Constitution of her own voluntary choice. A second objection is, that California has assigned her own boundaries without the previous authority of Congress. But she was left to organize herself without any boundaries fixed by previous law or by prescription. She was obliged, therefore, to assume boundaries, since without boundaries she must have remained unorganized. A third objection is, that California is too large. I answer, first, there is no common standard of States. California, although greater than many, is less than one of the States. Secondly. California, if too large, may be divided with her own consent, and a similar provision is all the security we have for reducing the magnitude and averting the preponderance of Texas. Thirdly. The boundaries of California seem not at all unnatural. The territory circumscribed is altogether contiguous and compact. Fourthly. The boundaries are convenient. They embrace only inhabited portions of the country, commercially connected with the port of San Francisco. No one has pretended to offer boundaries more in harmony with the physical outlines of the region concerned, or more convenient for civil administration. But to draw closer to the question, What shall be the boundaries of a new State? concerns 1st. In her coming as a free State; 2d. In her coming at all. The first charge rests on suspicion only, is peremptorily denied, and the denial is not controverted by proofs. I dismiss it altogether. The second is true, to the extent that the President advised the people of California, that, having been left without any civil government, under the military supervision of the Executive, without any authority of law whatever, their adoption of a Constitution, subject to the approval of Congress, would be regarded favorably by the President. Only a year ago, it was complained that the exercise of the military power to maintain law and order in California, was a fearful innovation. But now the wind has changed, and blows even stronger from the opposite quarter. May this Republic never have a President commit a more serious or more dangerous usurpation of power than the act of the present eminent Chief Magistrate, in endeavoring to induce legislative authority to relieve him from the exercise of military power, by establishing civil institutions regulated by law in distant provinces! Rome would have been standing this day, if she had had only such generals First. The State herself; and California, of course, and such tribunes. is content. Secondly. Adjacent communities; Oregon does not complain of encroachment, and there is no other adjacent community to complain. Thirdly. The other States of the Union; the larger the Pacific States, the smaller will be their relative power in the Senate. All the States now here are either Atlantic States or inland States, and surely they may well indulge California in the largest liberty of boundaries. The fourth objection to the admission of California is, that no census had been taken, and no laws prescribing the qualifications of suffrage and the apportionment of Representatives in Convention, existed before her Convention was held. I answer, California was left to act ab initio. She must begin somewhere, without a census, and without such laws. The Pilgrim Fathers began in the same way on board the May-Flower; and, since it has been objected that some of the electors in California may have been aliens, I add, that all of the Pilgrim Fathers were aliens and strangers to the Commonwealth of Plymouth. Again, the objection may well be waived, if the Constitution of California is satisfactory, first to herself, secondly to the United States. Not a murmur of discontent has followed California to this place. As to ourselves, we confine our inquiries about the Constitution of a new State to four things:1st. The boundaries assumed; and I have considered that point in this case already. 2d. That the domain within the State is secured to us; and it is admitted that this has been properly done. 3d. That the Constitution shall be republican, and not aristocratic and monarchical. In this case the mly objection is, that the Constitution, inasmuch as t inhibits slavery, is altogether too republican. 4th. That the representation claimed shall be just and equal. No one denies that the population of California is sufficient to demand two Representatives on the Federal basis; and, secondly, a new census is at hand, and the error, if there is one, will be immediately corrected. The fifth objection is, California comes under Executive influence:→→ But the objection, whether true in part, or even in the whole, is immaterial. The question is, not what moved California to impress any particular feature on her Constitution, nor even what induced her to adopt a Constitution at all; but it is whether, since she has adopted a Constitution, she shall be admitted into the Union. I have now reviewed all the objections raised against the admission of California. It is seen that they have no foundation in the law of nature and of nations. Nor are they founded in the Constitution, for the Constitution prescribes no form or manner of proceeding in the admission of new States, but leaves the whole to the discretion of Congress. "Congress may admit new States." The objections are all merely formal and technical. They rest on precedents which have not always, nor even generally, been observed. But it is said that we ought now to establish a safe precedent for the future. I answer, 1st: It is too late to seize this occasion for that purpose. The irregularities complained of being unavoidable, the caution should have been exercised when, 1st, Texas was annexed; 2d, when we waged war against Mexico; or, 3d, when we ratified the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. I answer, 2d: We may establish precedents at pleasure. Our successors will exercise their pleas ure about following them, just as we have done in such cases. I answer, 3d: States, nations, and empires, are apt to be peculiarly capricious, not only as to the time, but even as to the manner, of their being born, and as to their subsequent political changes. They are not accustomed to conform to precedents. California sprang from the head of the nation, not only complete in proportion and full armed, but ripe for affiliation with its members. I proceed now to state my reasons for the opinion that CALIFORNIA OUGHT TO BE ADMITTED. The population of the United States consists of natives of Caucasian origin, and exotics of the same derivation. The native mass rapidly assimilates to itself and absorbs the exotic, and thus these constitute one homogeneous people. The African race, bond and free, and the aborigines, savage and civilized, being incapable of such assimilation and absorption, remain distinct, and, owing to their peculiar condition, they constitute inferior masses, and may be regarded as accidental if not disturbing political forces. The ruling homogeneous family planted at first on the Atlantic shores, and, following an obvious law, is seen continually and rapidly spreading itself westward year by year, subduing the wilderness and the prairie, and thus extending this great political community, which, as fast as it advances, breaks into distinct States for municipal purposes only, while the whole constitutes one entire contiguous and compact nation. Well-established calculations in political arithmetic enables us to say that the aggregate population of the nation now is That 10 years hence it will be and enterprise; and the systems of education prevailing among us open to all the stores of human science and art. The old world and the past were allotted by Providence to the pupilage of mankind, under the hard discipline of arbitrary power, quelling the violence of human passions. The new world and the future seem to have been appointed for the maturity of mankind, with the development of self-government operating in obedience to reason and judgment. We have thoroughly tried our novel system of Democratic Federal Government, with its complex, yet harmonious and effective combination of distinct 22,000,000 local elective agencies, for the conduct of domestic 30,000,000 affairs, and its common central elective agencies, for 38,000,000 the régulation of internal interests and of intercourse 50,000,000 with foreign nations; amd we know that it is a sys64,000,000 tem equally cohesive in its parts, and capable of all 80,000,000 desirable expansion; and that it is a system, moreover, perfectly adapted to secure domestic tranquil200,000,000 lity, while it brings into activity all the elements equal nearly to one-fourth of the present aggregate of national aggrandizement. The Atlantic States, population of the globe, and double the population through their commercial, social, and political affinof Europe at the time of the discovery of America. ities and sympathies, are steadily renovating the But the advance of population on the Pacific will Governments and the social constitutions of Europe far exceed what has heretofore occurred on the and of Africa. The Pacific States must necessarily Atlantic coast, while emigration even here is out-perform the same sublime and beneficent functions stripping the calculations on which the estimates in Asia. If, then, the American people shall remain are based. There are silver and gold in the mounan undivided nation, the ripening civilization of the tains and ravines of California. The granite of West, after a separation growing wider and wider New England and New York is barren. for four thousand years, will, in its circuit of the Allowing due consideration to the increasing den-world, meet again and mingle with the declining sity of our population, we are safe in assuming, that civilization of the East on our own free soil, and a long before this mass shall have attained the max- new and more perfect civilization will arise to bless imum of numbers indicated, the entire width of our the earth, under the sway of our own cherished and possessions from the Atlantic to the Pacific ocean beneficent democratic institutions. will be covered by it, and be brought into social maturity and complete political organization. The question now arises, Shall this one great people, having a common origin, a common language, a common religion, common sentiments, interests, sympathies, and hopes, remain one political State, one nation, one Republic, or shall it be broken into two conflicting and probably hostile Nations or Republics? There cannot ultimately be more than two; for the habit of association is already formed, as the interests of mutual intercourse are being formed. It is already ascertained where the centre of political power must rest. It must rest in the agricultural interests and masses, who will occupy the interior of the continent. These masses, if they cannot all command access to both oceans, will not be obstructed in their approaches to that one which offers the greatest facilities to their commerce. Shall the American people, then, be divided? Before deciding on this question, let us consider our position, our power, and capabilities The world contains no seat of empire so magnificent as this; which, while it embraces all the varying climates of the temperate zone, and is traversed by wide-expanding lakes and long-branching rivers, offers supplies on the Atlantic shores to the overcrowded nations of Europe, while on the Pacific Coast it intercepts the commerce of the Indies. The nation thus situated, and enjoying forest, mineral, and agricultural resources unequalled, if endowed also with moral energies adequate to the achievement of great enterprises, and favored with a Government adapted to their character and condition, must command the empire of the seas, which alone is real empire. We think that we may claim to have inherited physical and intellectual vigor, courage, invention, We may then reasonably hope for greatness, felicity, and renown, excelling any hitherto attained by any nation, if, standing firmly on the continent, we loose not our grasp on the shore of either ocean. Whether a destiny so magnificent would be only partially defeated, or whether it would be altogether lost, by a relaxation of that grasp, surpasses our wisdom to determine, and happily it is not impor tant to be determined. It is enough, if we agree that expectations so grand, yet so reasonable and so just, ought not to be in any degree disappointed. And now it seems to me that the perpetual unity of the Empire hangs on the decision of this day and of this hour. California is already a State, a complete and fullyappointed State. She never again can be less than that. She can never again be a province or a colony; nor can she made to shrink and shrivel into the proportions of a federal dependent Territory. California, then, henceforth and for ever, must be, what she is now, a State. Our The question whether she shall be one of the United States of America has depended on her and on us. Her election has been made. consent alone remains suspended; and that consent must be pronounced now or never. I say now or never. Nothing prevents it now, but want of agreement among ourselves. Our harmony can not increase while this question remains open. We shall never agree to admit California, unless we agree now. Nor will California abide delay. I do not say that she contemplates independence; but, if she does not, it is because she does not anticipate rejeotion. Do you say that she can have no motive? Consider, then, her attitude, if rejected. She needs a Constitution, a Legislature, and Magistrates; she needs titles to that golden domain of yours within her |