| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Compulsory manumission : Or, an examination of the actual state of the West India question
Author: M'Donnell, Alexander
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Compulsory manumission : Or, an examination of the actual state of the West India question" ***
------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
------------------
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION;
AN EXAMINATION
OF
THE ACTUAL STATE
OF THE
WEST INDIA QUESTION.
BY
ALEXANDER M‘DONNELL, ESQ.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE-STREET.
MDCCCXXVII.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES,
Stamford-Street.
ADVERTISEMENT.
It is fearful odds against a writer, when, at each stage of his task,
he is liable to encounter prejudice as an upholder of a condition of
society so repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen as that of slavery.
Greatly must those odds be increased, if a disposition be shown by
Government, hitherto believed impartial, to array the weight of its
authority against him.
But it is hoped that prejudice will not preclude inquiry. In the
following pages it will be found, that in setting forth the actual
state of the West India Question, the real and permanent welfare of
the slaves occupies a conspicuous place.
In regard to the display of power, let us conclude, that when a
measure can be demonstrated as positively bad, such disapprobation
will be manifested by the independent and disinterested members
of the legislature, as must exercise a salutary control over the
counsels of ministers.
Under this impression, the following pages are respectfully submitted
to the consideration of the members of both Houses of Parliament.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
_West India Party disingenuously treated_ 1
CHAPTER II.
_Compulsory Manumission contrary to the Spirit of the
Resolutions of Parliament_ 12
CHAPTER III.
_Infringement of the Right of Property_ 22
_Sect._ 1.—The Conversion of good Servants into bad 22
_Sect._ 2.—Loss arising, if a number of effective Hands
be taken from the Plantation 35
_Sect._ 3.—Plantations burdened with Expenses, while
the gross Returns are diminished 44
_Sect._ 4.—Contrary to the Law of Mortgage 47
CHAPTER IV.
_Injury to the Well-being of the Slaves_ 51
_Sect._ 1.—Counteracts the Incentives to Civilization 51
_Sect._ 2.—Debauchery and Crime encouraged 53
_Sect._ 3.—Virtuous Union of the Sexes impeded 56
_Sect._ 4.—Task-work prevented 57
_Sect._ 5.—Invidious Feelings excited by prompting to a
general Rush for Freedom 60
CHAPTER V.
_Safety of the Colonies endangered_ 64
_Sect._ 1.—Cultivation superseded 65
_Sect._ 2.—Rebellion instigated 66
CHAPTER VI.
_No just Analogy in the Precedents adduced by Government_ 70
_Sect._ 1.—Trinidad 70
_Sect._ 2.—St. Lucie 73
_Sect._ 3.—Berbice 74
_Sect._ 4.—Cape of Good Hope 76
CHAPTER VII.
_Responsibility attaching to Ministers if they enforce
Compulsory Manumission_ 78
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
CHAPTER I.
WEST INDIA PARTY DISINGENUOUSLY TREATED.
The West India Question is gradually narrowing to a point. There
seems now to be little difference of opinion in regard to all safe
and practicable measures tending to ameliorate the condition of the
slaves, though the time and manner of their adoption may be dependent
upon local considerations.
The question of emancipation, or that measure commonly designated
Compulsory Manumission, alone remains at issue. The paramount
importance of this clause, and the alarm felt in every West India
colony at the threat of government to enforce its adoption, has
caused the proceedings of the colonial department to be closely
scrutinized, and it has in a variety of publications been charged
with precipitation.
A pamphlet has lately appeared in vindication, under the title of
“Remarks on an Address to the Members of the New Parliament, on the
Proceedings of the Colonial Department with respect to the West
India Question.” It is avowedly “written by a Member of the late
Parliament,” and bears internal evidence of being the production of a
gentleman connected with the Colonial Office.
This pamphlet calls for a reply, for two reasons: First, because the
writer indulges in recrimination, and brings accusations against the
West India body, which, if passed unnoticed, might produce a very
erroneous impression on the minds of the moderate and disinterested
portion of the legislature.
Secondly, because the writer discusses the compulsory manumission
clause, and acquaints us with the nature and strength of the
reasoning employed by government to justify the adoption of that
measure.
The general tone of the publication will create much surprise, and in
one respect it will be of service, in making known the true relations
and influence of the contending parties. It has been asserted by
the anti-colonial advocates, and believed by a large portion of the
community, that the West Indians possessed great influence with
government, by means of which their cause was powerfully strengthened.
If the well-informed portion of the public could once have
entertained this belief, their error must appear manifest on a
perusal of the pamphlet in question. The writer expresses himself
very unceremoniously towards those of the West India body, who
were members of the last parliament; and his tone might lead one to
conclude that he thinks them not worth conciliation. He seems to
justify his asperity, by complaining that the colonial department
is improperly singled out for attack in regard to those proceedings
which the colonial interests do not approve. Now he must be aware
that, constitutionally speaking, _responsibility_ peculiarly attaches
to that officer of the crown from whose department particular acts
emanate. If important measures affecting the colonies are carried
into effect, while there is reason to believe that the Secretary of
State for that department is in possession of despatches, official
reports, or other information showing their inexpediency, he will be
chiefly looked to for the consequences; because it is conceived to be
his immediate duty to give full explanation of the details, both to
his colleagues and to parliament, and not to incur responsibility for
measures he could not conscientiously approve. These are rather the
sentiments of the British nation than of any individual party.
It cannot, therefore, be invidious to canvass freely the acts of
that particular department. It is the obvious and the regular course
where grievances are felt; and all our ideas of public principle
warrant a belief, that when such grievances are fairly stated, every
officer of the crown to whose department they referred, so far from
feeling indignant at their exposition, would be anxious to extend his
protection, in order to have them promptly redressed.
Thus viewing the case, our advocate of the colonial department cannot
mistake the tendency or application of any of the comments contained
in this publication; and he will be aware that a fair spirit of
argument alone influences an examination of his positions, and of the
judgment evinced in the manner and tone with which he has maintained
them.
This writer endeavours to defend government, by charging the West
Indians with inconsistency. This mode of argument, so frequently
resorted to in political warfare, in nine cases out of ten indicates
a feeble cause. It can surely never be too late to correct a
principle radically wrong.
But let us examine the charge.
It is contended, that compulsory manumission was clearly laid down
in the proceedings of parliament in March, 1824; that it was heard
by the West India members without opposition, which was an implied
acquiescence; and that if they now turn round to oppose it, they must
have been “the most ignorant, incautious, and imbecile body of men
who ever were got together to represent an interest.”
It was well known to the writer of this sentence, that the West India
members were unanimously opposed to compulsory manumission; and it
may be added, that a charge, couched in such language as this, could
not have been expected from such a quarter. It may be true, that
the West India members did not appeal to the House so early or so
often as the threatened injustice may have demanded. But is this
difficult to account for? When West India members have come forward
to state their case, have we not seen it retorted upon them in the
widely-disseminated publications of the anti-colonial party, in terms
of the utmost coarseness: “He is a slave-driver: what attention or
confidence is due to the statement of such a character?”
The West India members are indeed in a dilemma: if they speak, they
run the risk of being abused—if silent, they are to be held parties
to all the acts of precipitation and folly which may take place in
colonial government.
It would be unnecessary to touch upon this point, did not one remark
pre-eminently suggest itself for grave consideration. Throughout this
pamphlet we have the defending of parties, clashing of interests,
and such terms; just as if the “Saints” and the West Indians were to
fight the battle betwixt them, and whichever proved the most cunning,
or the most persevering, would carry their point. And is this the
language an apologist of government thinks it necessary to maintain?
Can he have forgotten the grounds on which the West Indians were
induced to commit their cause to the care of government? It was to
stop useless or violent discussion. It proceeded from the principle,
that if one party declaimed about alleged oppression of the negroes,
and the other about their property, the safety of the colonies was
the immediate province of ministers; that, as public servants, it
was their sacred duty to uphold all the possessions of the crown;
and that, in watching over their welfare, they equally protected the
property of the colonists.
Though this consideration influenced the conduct of many West India
members, still it is very erroneous to assert, that no explicit
opposition was made to compulsory manumission at the very outset.
It is asserted that it passed without animadversion, “_except in a
speech_ of the present Lord Seaford (Mr. C. R. Ellis), made on the
day on which Mr. Canning uttered his celebrated commentary on its
enactments.” One would think that dissent could not well be more
clearly avowed than from the lips of the Chairman of the West India
body. In point of fact, sufficient opposition, consistently with the
respect which was shown to government, was evinced, to prove that the
measure of compulsory manumission was from first to last peculiarly
condemned by the colonial interests. When Mr. Canning first made
known the intentions of government on this point, Lord Seaford
explicitly denied being a party to them. When Mr. Brougham brought
forward his last motion on the same subject, Lord Seaford again
gave his reasons for resisting the measure. To those reasons, not a
syllable in refutation was offered by Mr. Canning.
Besides these declarations of the chairman, every West India petition
presented either to the king, to parliament, or to the Colonial
office, explicitly set forth similar sentiments. The agents for the
colonies, the merchants and mortgagees, early felt alarm; and in
a petition from these last, presented on the 26th April, 1826, to
the Lords by Lord Redesdale, and to the Commons by Mr. Baring, it
was stated, “That until it shall be proved, that free negroes will
work for hire, the process of compulsory emancipation cannot even be
experimentally commenced, upon a West India estate, with justice to
the various parties holding legal claims upon the property.”
Surely nothing could be more explicit than this, to convey the
opinion of the parties most deeply interested in the question. But
the hardy assertion of the writer we have quoted, calls for still
further explanation. This writer must know, that in every interview
or communication with the Colonial office, those of the West India
body, to whose opinions most weight was likely to be attached, were
loud and strenuous in their entreaties for forbearance. They stated,
that the government had not given sufficient examination to the case;
that they were ignorant of many important local circumstances that
those ought all first to be carefully and fully investigated before
a measure of vital importance was enforced; and that, in short,
the government were already getting into difficulties, and if they
proceeded further they would get more deeply involved, and might find
it unpleasant, if not impossible, to extricate themselves.
To attempt, therefore, to criminate the West India party, if
opposition be now manifested, is not consistent with that
impartiality which we have a right to expect from a member of the
legislature; still less does it indicate the manly candour presumed
to influence the conduct of an officer of His Majesty’s government.
It is argued, again, that a general declaration of dissent was not
sufficient. The Order in Council for Trinidad contained four clauses,
showing how compulsory manumission was to be carried into execution.
That Order was uniformly described as the model for the rest of the
colonies; and it was the duty of the West India party, in their
subsequent proceedings, to move for the rescission of those clauses,
if they entertained objections to them as a model.
Two reasons may be assigned why the colonists deemed it unnecessary
to express their disapproval of the Trinidad order. First, the tenure
on which property was held in the British colonies differed from
that of the Spanish colony of Trinidad. Secondly, it was notorious,
that various portions of that order had to be repeatedly sent home
for explanation and remodelling. Was there, then, fair reason to
believe, that every clause contained in the original order would be
enforced upon the other colonies, while it was yet doubtful if they
would be finally confirmed even in the colony for which the order had
been originally framed?
Time was afforded the government for reflection. It was presumed,
that they would learn, by experience, the difficulty occasioned by
legislating precipitately for distant settlements. This line of
conduct was dictated by respect for the government. Had the West
India body in England come forward in a bolder manner than they had
done to resist the determination avowed by the Colonial Secretary
of State, how would they have been met? They would have been told
by the very same parties who are now wilfully misinterpreting their
quiescence—“You are exciting the colonial assemblies to needless
opposition—your violence will engender contumacy in its worst
form—remain silent till you know what is their decision.”
Such reflections undoubtedly did actuate them; but now, when
opposition to compulsory manumission is known to be unanimous
throughout the colonies which possess legislatures, the West India
body in England, since repeated warnings and admonitions have been
vain, do but consistently follow them up by appealing in a determined
manner to parliament, and to the British nation, against the
threatened intentions of government to enforce its enactment.
All the apologists of the measure seem, in their very tone, to
be aware of the great degree of responsibility to be incurred in
carrying it into effect; and hence there is a laboured attempt to
show, that it is strictly conformable with the first proceedings of
parliament, and with the resolutions of 1823. The West Indians are
told, “in addition to your ignorance and imbecility, there will be
the charge of shameful inconsistency to bring against you, if you
now oppose our measures. You concurred unanimously in Mr. Canning’s
resolutions; compulsory manumission is distinctly contemplated by
those resolutions; and can you now propose to retract the assent
given to them by your former votes.”
The West India members had little right to expect that such an
accusation would ever be brought against them. In every stage of the
proceedings, the whisper was incessantly reiterated in the ear of His
Majesty’s ministers—“Adhere honestly to your own resolutions—for the
sake of justice we call upon you, not to court a vulgar and transient
popularity at our expense!”
And why was it that the resolutions were thus implicitly relied on?
Not from any opinion that declarations of separate branches of the
legislature could affect the rights of individuals resting on the
statute-laws of the realm, but, because the parliamentary resolution
contained a principle of cautious and practical legislation, and
authorised the belief that, at each stage of procedure, careful
examination and scrutiny would precede the adoption of measures which
could be alleged, by any party concerned, to infringe their rights or
interests.
When, subsequently, statements were made in the House of Commons,
that government was departing from this principle, in enforcing
compulsory manumission, neither Mr. Canning, nor Mr. Wilmot Horton,
thought proper openly to attempt an explicit refutation.
What is the commentary? Matters are now becoming more critical,
and the Executive resort to the plea of acting only upon the
declared will of the legislature in their justification. Let us give
them every advantage. Let us discuss the propriety of compulsory
manumission, as it agrees with the resolutions of parliament; and if
we succeed in our endeavours, we shall command the more attention,
from meeting our antagonists on the ground they have themselves
selected.
CHAPTER II.
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION CONTRARY TO THE
SPIRIT OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF PARLIAMENT.
The first of these often-quoted Resolutions declares, “That it is
expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures for AMELIORATING
the condition of the slave population in His Majesty’s colonies.”
It was to facilitate the accomplishment of this object of
amelioration _alone_, that many respectable West India planters in
England gave their sanction to the resolution; and it is proper here
to state, that their interference and acquiescence was by no means
of that sweeping character claimed for it by Earl Bathurst in his
despatches to the colonies. They explicitly declared, that in none of
their proceedings had they the intention of imposing restraints or
difficulties upon the colonial legislatures.
The Second Resolution is, “That through a determined and persevering,
but at the same time judicious and temperate, enforcement of such
measures, this House looks forward to a progressive improvement in
the character of the slave population, such as may PREPARE them for a
participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed
by other classes of His Majesty’s subjects.”
This resolution is the one which the writer, who has undertaken to
illustrate the views of government, quotes as decisive of the case.
He says, the object was “‘to adopt,’—aye, not only ‘to adopt,’ but
‘enforce’ such measures ‘in a determined and persevering, though at
the same time judicious and temperate manner,’ as would effect,—what
purpose?—the mitigation of the evils of slavery?—as would remove the
odious imputation of inhumanity adhering to the West Indian planters,
so generally prevalent at that time throughout England, whether true
or false? _No: to enforce such measures as might ‘prepare them for a
participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed
by other classes of His Majesty’s subjects.’_”
The writer here deems contingent emancipation to be broadly and
unequivocally provided, and in a very triumphant tone, he adds,
“What! was the intellect of the West Indian members of the House of
Commons who were present on that day, so obtuse, that they could not
understand the meaning of those words?”
Perhaps not, to answer the ideas of this writer; but it is to be
hoped that the case will be different with the legislature at
large. It is surely quite apparent, that if by this Resolution
any legislative measure for effecting emancipation had been
contemplated, the term should be,“ADMIT them to a participation in
civil rights.”
The colonial advocate argues throughout upon this most erroneous
assumption. The word “prepare” cannot here admit of two meanings; it
is precise, definite, and strictly accordant with the desideratum
avowed in the first resolution. It was not possible to convey in
a more explicit manner the obvious fact, that the slaves _are not
as yet in a state to receive freedom_. By “preparing them,” it was
understood that they had a probation to go through; that their
condition had to be materially changed and improved; that, in fine,
the fruits of amelioration must have been made visible before further
measures were adopted. May we not ask whether this Second Resolution
be not as consistently applicable to the progress which _voluntary_
manumissions are making towards an extinction of slavery, as to
any measure of compulsory manumission? In the one case, as in the
other, is it not expedient to adopt such measures of amelioration, as
may effect a progressive improvement in the character of the slave
population, and PREPARE them for a participation in those civil
rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of His
Majesty’s subjects?
What, let us demand, was the object of all the powerful and extensive
means taken to secure moral and religious instruction—of the
appointment of the bishops and regular clergy? What was it but to
enable the negroes to appreciate correctly the possession of civil
privileges, in order that hereafter we might have civilized beings,
and not barbarians, living in freedom in our colonies?
But if there could be the least ground for misinterpretation in
the Second, it must be speedily removed by attending to the Third
Resolution: “That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of
this purpose at the earliest period that shall be compatible with the
well-being of the slaves themselves, with the safety of the colonies,
and with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of
private property.”
Here are laid down certain conditions which must be complied with in
whatever new measures are introduced. These conditions constitute the
strong reliance of the colonists for protection, since the letter of
them definitely confirms what appears to be the spirit of the two
preceding Resolutions.
It may be proper to add that, besides the direct declaration of these
Resolutions, we have them corroborated by the collateral authority
of ministers. In the debate in 1823, Mr. Canning not only made no
sort of allusion to compulsory manumission, but that project does
not appear to have been even thought of. The mode of emancipation
contended for by the anti-colonial party had for its object the
freedom of the rising generation of negroes; but Mr. Canning both
resisted this, and appeared anxious to check any notion which might
be entertained, that plans for emancipation of any kind were then in
contemplation.
As a further and conclusive proof that compulsory manumission was
not, even by ministers themselves, deemed to be implied in the
Resolutions proposed by Mr. Canning, but that it was an after-thought
of their own, we have the direct and decisive testimony of Lord
Bathurst.
In his Lordship’s circular despatch to the Governors of Colonies
having local legislatures, dated 9th July, 1823, and consequently
near two months after these Resolutions were passed, and when it
is presumed that the executive government had determined on the
details of such measures as were to be adopted in furtherance of
those Resolutions, Lord Bathurst gives a comprehensive sketch of the
various amendments required in the colonial laws.
“The next subject,” says his Lordship, “to which I must draw your
attention, is the manumission of slaves.”
After expressing his satisfaction, that the practice of impeding
manumission by the exaction of a heavy fine or tax has been
discontinued, his Lordship anticipates a further facilitation to
manumissions, by the concurrence of each colonial legislature in
the final repeal of all such charges, including all official fees.
His Lordship thus appears to consider the _expense_ of obtaining
emancipation, as the chief obstacle which it was incumbent upon the
colonial legislatures to remove.
He then proceeds to specify all the remaining obstacles which he
thinks ought to be removed.
“The first obstacle to manumission arises from the apprehension of
this being resorted to by the owner for the purpose of relieving
himself from the burden of maintaining infirm or aged slaves.—A
second obstacle to manumission seems to arise from a presumed
legal difficulty, in regard to the incapability of a slave to make
contracts.—A third, and much more serious obstacle arises out of
the legal limitations to property in slaves; as in cases of entail,
family-settlement, or mortgage.—A difficulty analogous to this arises
out of doubtful or disputable titles.”
How were these difficulties to be obviated? By the _compulsory_
enactments of the Trinidad order in council? No such thing. They were
not even contemplated.
“To remove,” says his Lordship, “all the preceding obstacles to
manumission, you will therefore propose to the legislature of your
colony to pass a law to the following effect:—Permanent commissioners
should be appointed, who (on application being made by, or on behalf
of, any slave, _with his master’s consent_) should ascertain the
names,” &c. &c. Parl. Pap. _Sess._ 1824. p. 10.
This passage attracted much attention in the colonies. The Court of
Policy in Demerara, in stating, at a subsequent period, that it could
not enact compulsory manumission, since “It had not the right to
invade the property of its fellow-colonists, by admitting that they
can in any manner be deprived of it contrary to the laws by which it
is secured to them,” remarked—“This principle is laid down in Earl
Bathurst’s letter of the 9th July, 1823, wherein _the consent of the
master_ is distinctly coupled with the application to be made by or
on the behalf of a slave for freedom.”
This reply of the court of policy of Demerara is copied into a
pamphlet, entitled, “The West India Question practically considered,”
with which performance the Colonial Department may possibly be
acquainted. It has the important words, “consent of the master,”
printed as above in italics, as if to remind the government more
forcibly of its own previous statement.
After this exposition, may we not venture to ask, who most deserves
the reprobation of disinterested members of the legislature? The
ministerial advocate, who asserts that compulsory manumission was
avowed from the outset, or the West Indian who can produce Lord
Bathurst’s own words to prove the contrary?
It must have been between July, 1823, and March, 1824, that the
innovation was devised. But even at the latter period its bearings
were not developed.
Few members of the House of Commons can have forgotten Mr. Canning’s
luminous oration on this occasion, when he described the evil
consequences of precipitation, and the difficulties which opposed
themselves to the termination of a state like that of slavery.
It is not a little singular, that the same passage which the
apologist of the Colonial office quotes from this speech as proving
that emancipation was then contemplated, may, with far more
effect, be turned against him. Adverting to the other measures of
amelioration, Mr. Canning, on the 16th March, 1824, observed: “By
this process, and by these degrees, may the slave be gradually fitted
for the last grand consummation of benefit, the power of acquiring
his freedom.”
The term here used, FITTED FOR, is in strict consonance with the word
PREPARE, employed by Mr. Canning in the outset; and though he now,
for the first time, notices Compulsory Manumission, he passes it over
in a very cursory manner, either as if anxious to avoid discussion,
or desirous of concealing its importance. An ordinary observer, on
reading the more recent despatches sent out to the colonies, in
which the views of government were stated, would imagine that, in
place of the guarded expressions originally used, terms impelling to
quicker and more extensive proceedings had since been substituted.
Consistency is a delicate word to political ears. Lest any
misunderstanding should arise, or any member of the legislature
should conceive himself shackled by former votes, it was necessary to
explain fully to which side the charge attaches of having abandoned
former principles.
Having therefore removed that injurious bias which it appears to
be the object of the advocate of the Colonial Department to raise
against the West Indians, on the ground of inconsistency, it now
becomes desirable to discuss the principle of compulsory manumission
on its own merits.
It will be found that the opposition of the West Indians is not
directed against an imaginary evil; that opposition now is very
different from those minor objections locally entertained against
particular plans of amelioration; and that, above all, if government,
with a view of courting popular favour, have innovated upon their
original understanding with the West Indian party, they have neither
chosen the most benevolent nor the wisest mode to accomplish their
own end of terminating slavery.
We propose to pursue the examination upon the grounds marked out
by the Parliamentary Resolutions already quoted, in the order in
which the importance of the several heads may be presumed to receive
attention from a legislative assembly.
1. Justice, as regards the right of property.
2. Humanity, as regards the well-being of the negroes.
3. Sound Policy, as regards the safety of the Colonies.
CHAPTER III.
INFRINGEMENT OF THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY.
Loss of property may be brought upon the Proprietor of a West India
estate in two ways:
First, By introducing a new tone of feeling among the Negroes, and
converting good servants into bad.
Secondly, By abstracting such a number of efficient hands from
an estate, that the remainder are incompetent to carry on its
cultivation in an effective manner, or to render its fixed capital
productive.
_Section 1._
THE CONVERSION OF GOOD SERVANTS INTO BAD.
If we imagine an estate, with a given number of negroes, to produce
three hundred hogsheads of sugar a year, few will be inclined to
doubt the disposition of the proprietor to increase its production,
if practicable, to three hundred and fifty or four hundred. What
are the means, then, to effect this object, without increasing the
number of labourers? The proprietor finds himself possessed of a
number of people, the development of whose full capability for labour
depends upon their treatment. If they are prompted to work with
willingness and satisfaction, skill in the various branches of work
to be performed speedily displays itself. If thus some of the slaves
can be converted from ordinary labourers into good tradesmen, and if
those in the field can be taught to use their utmost dexterity in
field-cultivation, a much more profitable division of labour than
hitherto will be accomplished. Through this improvement there is less
expense in superintendence, there is more work procured from the
steady government of the negroes without rigorous coercion, and the
cultivation is extended generally, from a better and more skilful
distribution of the various employments on the estate.
To accomplish this condition of things, the proprietor is induced to
grant to the slaves every reasonable indulgence and benefit. He uses
a discriminating power, bestowing reward upon the well-deserving, and
withholding it from the vicious; and thus holds up a double example
to the rest.
On the other hand, the slaves, finding that the master deals out his
favour with strict impartiality, are cheered under their labour by
the assurance that their exertions will be appreciated, and emulate
each other in assiduity and good conduct.
It is perfectly evident, therefore, that it is the first interest
of the master to have the minds of his people easy and contented;
and that whatever tends to destroy their tranquillity occasions to
him inevitable loss of property. He will not then be able to avail
himself of that skill and willingness to work above described, and
instead of having his three hundred hogsheads increased to four,
which he might otherwise have expected from the greater diffusion of
intelligence among the rising generation, he will have his produce
diminished to two hundred, and rendered still less and less, as
discontent spreads and becomes more deeply rooted among his people.
It is one of the worst features of compulsory manumission, that it
must inspire this discontent. Is it surprising, therefore, that it
should excite such strenuous opposition? The colonists know well,
that there is not an instance in our colonies of free negroes
working steadily in the field for hire; and that if their people
be compulsorily freed, the cultivation of their estates must be
superseded. There will no longer be a motive for the master, as
at present, to bestow benefits upon the slave; on the contrary,
every indulgence granted would only tend to swell that sum which is
ultimately to be employed to the master’s injury. The negroes will
learn, that benefits must cease to flow to them from their masters:
hence the interests of the two, instead of being reciprocal as
hitherto, become directly opposed to each other.
It is beyond any effort or precaution of the master, when he can
procure no other labourers, to retrieve the injury he thus sustains.
His property is placed at the mercy of his own servants. In the
practical operation of the measure, his best and most serviceable
people will become the first discontented. They will, as a natural
result, be directly induced to suppress their skill, zeal, and
willingness to work, or in other ways depreciate their personal value.
When slaves have the power to enforce their freedom from their
owners by such a process as that of appraisement, those who are of
bad character are comparatively rewarded, while those who are really
meritorious are punished.
Thus, on the same estate, a disorderly and unprofitable slave may be
readily parted with by his master for fifty pounds, whilst another,
a steady, intelligent, and assiduous slave, might, for these good
qualities, be worth three hundred. Yet, disproportionate as are the
characters and consequent value of the two, the desire for freedom
will operate with both; but how strikingly unequal are the terms
upon which they are to obtain the same reward. To the one who is
profligate and undeserving the obstacle is trivial. On the contrary,
the meritorious slave, applying to his master to know the amount of
his ransom, finds it magnified above that of his fellow sixfold.
He cannot fail to be struck with the largeness of the amount, and
the time requisite to raise it. Such an obvious departure from the
principles of common equity, as this, must engender discontent, and
prompt the meritorious individual to seek for the cause of this
difference in value. He will conceive it gross injustice, that a
bad character, who has always disregarded his master’s interests,
should quickly get his freedom, whilst he himself, who has constantly
studied those interests, must wait for it through a course of years
lengthened in exact proportion to the value of his services.
When the measure fairly begins to work, the grievance is greatly
aggravated.
It is intended, that a proportion of the capital sunk in the lands
and buildings of each estate shall be added to the value of each
slave.
Earl Bathurst, in his despatch to Sir Benjamin D’Urban, of the 25th
February, 1826, says:—
“If, in the process of time, it should be unfortunately found, that
the slaves thus manumitted altogether abandon their owners, and
refuse to work as free persons, the owner not having the means, by
reason of the Abolition Act, to supply the loss of his slaves, and
not being able to engage any free labourer for his sugar-plantations,
the price which must then be assigned to the loss of each slave must
have a direct reference to that state in which the plantation will be
placed by the progressive reduction of the means of cultivating it.”
Under this plan it will be the _deserving_ slaves who will have to
pay for the lands and buildings.
The higher the personal value of the slave, the greater is his
_relative_ utility to the plantation, and the greater must be the
recompense awarded to the proprietor for superseded cultivation. The
relative utility of a negro of bad character may thus be estimated
at not more than ten pounds, while that of a trustworthy individual
may rise so high as one hundred and fifty. In both these cases, the
respective sums have to be added to the slave’s personal value,
before his master can be said to have received an equivalent for his
liberation. If the personal value of a slave of bad character be
estimated at 50_l._, the compensation of 10_l._ for his _relative_
utility to the plantation being added, will make a sum of 60_l._
only, as the price of his manumission. If the personal value of the
skilful and zealous slave be estimated at 300_l._, the equivalent of
150_l._ for his _relative_ utility to the plantation being added,
will require as much as 450_l._ to be raised for the purchase of his
manumission.
Here the impediment is increased from six to eight fold.
But there is yet further injustice. Not only are different
descriptions of cultivation carried on in the colonies, but the same
species of cultivation may greatly vary on estates contiguous to
each other, from difference of soil, or other local circumstances.
Accordingly as those circumstances are more or less favourable, in
a corresponding proportion will be the value of the slave, and the
appraisers will be called upon to adjust this value, thus varying in
different districts of the same colony.
Suppose the fixed capital sunk on a coffee or cotton plantation to
be 5,000_l._, and that sunk on an adjoining sugar-plantation to
be 25,000_l._, while each possesses the same number of negroes.
One of these from each plantation, of precisely similar capability
and character, demands his freedom. The first finds there is to be
an addition of but 10_l._ to his price; not from inferiority of
character or skill, but from the accidental circumstance of his
living on a plantation where the amount of fixed capital is small.
The man from the latter, the sugar-estate, finds it, as before
stated, so high as 150_l._, making the difficulty of obtaining
freedom perhaps double, as compared with his companion and equal. The
same argument would apply even to two estates, which both produced
sugar, provided the buildings and machinery on the one were better
and more complete than that of the other, or the land more productive.
Thus, the more extensively that machinery has been introduced
to facilitate and lighten labour, the more will it be to the
prejudice of the slaves. When the supply of labourers is short, to
introduce the most advanced and highest description of machinery is
all-important and desirable, and the main step to advance a colony
to prosperity. But in the new measure proposed, this is checked at
once, because no proprietor would think of an outlay, when it could
be withdrawn in no other way than by pittances wrung from his best
slaves, in their eagerness for freedom.
In contemplating these several facts, can there be a moment’s
hesitation in regard to the discontent created? Let us imagine a
serviceable man on a sugar-plantation applying for his freedom. He
has formed in his own mind an estimate of what he ought to pay, and
he betakes himself to the appraiser, with the money in his hand. To
his astonishment he is asked a sum far beyond his means of payment;
he cannot comprehend the cause; and no alternative remains to him
but to go back and brood over his disappointment. When he finds his
long-cherished hopes utterly frustrated; when, too, he perceives a
worthless fellow, distinguished only for idleness and debauchery,
now sporting and enjoying himself at liberty all day long, perhaps
laughing at the deserving individual who remains in servitude; when
he sees his acquaintance on some neighbouring plantation attain his
freedom, merely from his chancing to live on an estate where less
machinery was used, will he, in common reason, return to his duty a
contented man? Is he not goaded on to renounce his better qualities,
when he is thus made to feel, that they are insuperable impediments
to the attainment of his natural wishes? He discovers that discontent
is his surest remedy; that he has only to display the sullenness
which he actually feels; that, in one word, he has but to become a
bad subject, in order to obtain liberty the more speedily.
Can then the sturdiest champions of compulsory manumission attempt
to maintain, that if this man was worth a dollar a day before this
occurrence, he will be worth as much still; and if the return from
his labour be reduced one-half or two-thirds, will any man contend
that a direct violation of property has not been inflicted?
We have confined our attention, hitherto, to the most deserving
slaves, because their welfare should be chiefly consulted in every
new measure. But with the gang at large the injurious tendency is
scarcely less striking. Besides a systematic practice of repressing
dexterity and usefulness, the slave may even resort to bodily
disablement, in order that his price may be lowered to his means.
Such practices are known to exist at present, where there is no
higher temptation than that of idling in the sick-house; and there
could therefore be little expectation, that the practice would not
increase under so much more powerful an inducement. It is vain to
argue, that there are reasons, such as the fear of correction from
his master or the magistrate, of sufficient weight to deter him
from this course—the object for which he strives is perpetually in
his view, and will inspire him to brave in its pursuit any present
punishment, well knowing that the owner’s patience must at length be
exhausted.
With the negroes generally, there is also a direct encouragement
to theft, since, under the peculiar circumstances of West India
cultivation, the master’s property is, necessarily, much exposed,
and liable to be stolen by his slaves. Even at present, the
quantity stolen annually is ascertained to be very great. Crime
usually increases in proportion to temptation; and, under the
proposed enactment, the slave must become habituated to fraudulent
propensities, and all his ingenuity stimulated to the commission of
secret theft. Thus is caused loss of property, both directly and
indirectly: directly, by the sum taken from the proprietor in the
property stolen; indirectly, by obstructing the steady government of
the plantation, and occasioning unavoidable loss of labour in the
services of the slave.
These are vital evils; and can any attempt be made to correct them,
particularly the most important one relating to self-depreciation?
Lord Bathurst, in his despatch of the 25th February, 1826,
acknowledges, that great mischief would ensue, if manumission were
obtained by other means than those of individual and habitual
industry; and, in alluding to the possibility of a slave’s
purchase-money being improperly obtained, his Lordship observes—
“For the sake of the community, indeed, such indiscriminate
manumissions ought to be prevented; for, undoubtedly, if the
purchase-money were obtained from any fund which may be formed for
the liberation of slaves, there would be no test of previous habits
of industry, of which there is presumptive evidence where the money
is procured by the honest earnings of the slave. To supply this
defect it may be provided, that in such cases a certificate of good
conduct for five years should be required of the Protector of slaves,
before the manumission should be completed.”
It is not difficult to perceive, that this idea of a certificate is
perfectly nugatory. Who is to give it? The Protector, it seems. How
is it possible for the Protector to judge of the private character
of the thousands under his charge? Mr. President Wray, sitting in
the Court of Policy, in Demerara, admitted, “that in a population of
more than 70,000 negroes, the protector could not be supposed to be
acquainted with individual characters.” To the proposed amendment,
that the existence of habits of industry and good conduct should be
shown before the same tribunal which inquired into the manner in
which the property was obtained, it was urged, that no such tribunal
would have better information than the protector himself; and any
certificate of good behaviour coming from incompetent judges, must
prove altogether futile as regards protection to the proprietor.
If the framers of the measure had interrogated managers or overseers
as to the length of time and the close attention it requires to
understand the character of the negroes, even of a moderately-sized
gang, they would have little thought of expecting a single public
officer to remedy the difficulty.
But if the protectors were multiplied from one to a thousand, and
did nothing else but watch over the individual character of the
slaves, the remedy must be fallacious. On the broad principle of
the measure itself, no system of appraisement, no reference to
previous character, can meet the artifices which a slave may employ
to depreciate his value; because many of such artifices, depending
on the suppression of skill or zeal, being of a negative character,
defy detection; and, even were they detected, detriment to the
proprietor’s interests must ensue, since a willing has been changed
into a discontented labourer.
Upon the rising generation, too, of the negroes, the operation of the
same baneful policy of self-deterioration must increase. The whole
of the youthful class, whose faculties are just dawning, will be
taught to suppress everything like acuteness, and to stifle every
indication of future habits of industry.
Compulsory manumission, therefore, contains the worst principle of
evil, a principle of growth. Each succeeding year will make more
evident to the negroes the means with which they have been invested
for self-depreciation; and each additional instance of its successful
adoption by their fellows encourage numbers to resort to the same
pernicious artifices.
How miserable, then, is the expedient of _partially_ questioning
certain individuals in the colonies, who, thus interrogated, may
pronounce that in the _present_ condition of the slaves the measure
would be inoperative, while the same persons, if questioned with a
view to the _future_ effects of the measure after ten or fifteen
years of its adoption, would predict a widely different result!
The writer of the “Remarks” seems unwilling to contemplate the
future, and condemns prospective arguments as speculative and merely
matter of opinion. But if the negro prefer a state of idleness to one
of constrained exertion, it follows that he must earnestly desire to
obtain his freedom. If he have repugnance to labour, he will seek
his freedom by those means which are easiest. If he possess common
reason, he must perceive that the easiest of all methods lies in
self-depreciation.
Would it not, then, be contrary to all principles of equity or sound
legislation, to subject what is thus a self-evident proposition to
the test of experiment, since, ere the result of that experiment
could be ascertained, irreparable injury must have been produced?
* * * * *
In reality, a part only of the subject has been treated of in Lord
Bathurst’s despatch, and in the “Remarks,” inasmuch as they regard
only those negroes who may be freed under the operation of the
measure, and overlook those who, from inability to procure their
freedom, still remain on the plantation.
But it has been shown, that greater deterioration of property
may occur from an improper feeling excited among the negroes who
remain, than from the more direct loss of labour occasioned by the
abstraction of those who become free.
_Section 2._
LOSS ARISING, IF A NUMBER OF EFFECTIVE
HANDS BE TAKEN FROM THE PLANTATION.
The capital sunk in land, buildings and machinery is known to be very
extensive in West India plantations.
We have now to inquire whether, under the mode proposed, the
proprietor will receive fair indemnification for this capital, from
the slaves who may obtain their freedom. It is conceived that, in
every point of view, loss is occasioned; and that while the plan of
increasing the price of the slave according to his relative utility
to the estate is calculated to engender the greatest discontent
generally, it at the same time affords inadequate compensation to the
proprietor, in regard to those who may purchase their manumission.
Lord Bathurst and the writer of the “Remarks” consider the means of
fair compensation for the fixed capital to be secured, as appears in
the following extract from his Lordship’s despatch:—
“If by these regulations an adequate compensation be not secured
to the owner, it must either be because the persons who are
authorised to decide upon the amount are not likely to be fit or fair
arbitrators, or because there are restrictions which will prevent
the arbitrators from the free exercise of their judgment. Now it
must be admitted nothing can be fairer than the proposed selection
of arbitrators in the Trinidad Order: viz., that in the event of
the owner and the slave not agreeing on the price of the slave’s
manumission, the owner should appoint one, the protector of slaves
another, and that an umpire should be appointed by the chief judge.
It is clear that an arbitration on such principle would protect the
interests of the owner, and if there were any objection it would be
that the bias was in his favour. As to restrictions or limitations,
there are none to obstruct the free exercise of their judgment.”
To this it may, in the first place, be replied, that the principle of
appraisement in its practical operation supposes the price of slaves
to continue to be regulated in the West India colonies by competition
in the market, like commodities in commerce.
Before we go further, then, let us examine how West India property
stands at present.
The following are the Gazette average prices of sugar for the last
seven years: viz.,
1820 35_s._ 0_d._
1821 31 0
1822 29 4½
1823 34 6
1824 30 11½
1825 38 7¼
1826 35 6½
It might be presumed, that the amount of capital which an individual
would be willing to vest in the purchase of a property would be
proportioned to its net returns. But it can be proved, that in 1819,
65,000_l._ sterling was offered for a sugar-estate in Jamaica, and
refused, as below its estimated value. About that period it was
considered, that the increasing consumption of sugar, while the means
of production were limited, presented a very favourable prospect for
the West India planter. Accordingly, in the year 1820, 70,000_l._
sterling was offered for the abovementioned estate, and also refused
for the same reason. But when the proceedings in this country in
1823 and 1824 began to operate, a mighty change took place. It can
be shown that distrust gradually arose, and as the proceedings
became more and more critical, in the same proportion and as quickly
did the value of property progressively decline. The demands of
alarmed creditors from all quarters fell on the planters; they
became embarrassed; and the very same property for which, in 1820,
70,000_l._ sterling had been refused, when again put up for sale in
1826, found no real bidding higher than 32,000_l._ currency, being
less than 23,000_l._ sterling.
Strong as this instance appears to be, others equally forcible could
be adduced, of the ruinous deterioration of West India property from
the like cause; and they exemplify the nature of those boons which
the writer of the “Remarks” affirms to have been accorded to the
colonists, and “for which they should feel grateful.”
If a decline in the value of the capital has ensued, whilst the price
of the produce has remained nearly the same, it is proof positive
that the depreciation of West India property is not attributable
to circumstances purely mercantile, but that it is owing to the
proceedings of the British legislature.
It is essential to keep this circumstance in mind, and to examine
the mode of appraisement prospectively, when the principle of supply
and demand no longer exists, as regards the objects to be appraised.
It is apparent, that to allow of a properly-constituted market-price,
there must be purchasers; but if the principle of compulsory
manumission be admitted, after what has been just stated relative to
the deterioration in the value of property already produced, will
any purchaser of slaves be found? Under the manifold evils detailed
in the preceding section, no capitalist henceforward would think of
making investments upon West India securities, and all transfer of
property would be at an end.
The appraisers are employed to fix a price between conflicting
representations of master and slave. But can a criterion for
equitable adjustment be formed? The slave himself is the only
purchaser who appears in the market, and in this condition of
things any mode of appraisement must be unjust and injurious to the
capitalist which assumes that colonial cultivation will continue
unchanged, in the event of the proposed measure being carried into
effect; and which does not take into the account the aversion which
every capitalist will then feel to making a precarious investment
dependent upon the uncertain services of the slaves.
This is founded upon the most simple principle. If a decrease in the
value of capital have already occurred beyond what is attributable
to circumstances purely mercantile, and is solely occasioned by the
threatened measures of Government, it is a fair inference that a
further decrease would ensue if such threatened measures were put
into execution; and the effects of that opinion prevailing throughout
the colonies, must render the chance of fully withdrawing the fixed
capital more and more precarious, as the evils of the measure became
more widely developed.
Let us suppose a sugar-plantation, with two hundred negroes, worth
40,000_l._; one-half sunk in lands and buildings, the other half the
value of the slaves. Accordingly as the negroes progressively free
themselves, the 20,000_l._ sunk in lands and buildings has to be
apportioned among them, and added to the price of their manumission.
Now it must be recollected, that _the whole_ of the two hundred
negroes are requisite to carry on profitable cultivation. The land
and buildings cannot be disposed of, or circumscribed to suit a more
limited business, as would be the case with premises in this country
when a manufacturer reduced the number of his workmen.
After a number of men, then, are freed, the proprietor is left with
a great concern upon his hands without people to carry it on. To
be fully remunerated for the property sunk in that concern, the
people remaining would have to pay, as he gradually becomes more
and more short of hands, a prodigious sum for their freedom. Is it
possible, from what has been stated, that he could receive full
indemnification? Let it be recollected, that it will soon be, not a
quota, but the _entire_ of the fixed capital, which the efficient
negroes, applying for freedom, will have to pay to indemnify their
masters,—and in actual practice can this be done?
The writer of the “Remarks” illustrates the case by comparing a
sugar-estate to a mill with a number of buckets! The reader, it is
presumed, will be tempted to smile at the idea of considering the
negroes as mere passive machines, devoid of those feelings, passions,
and intelligence, which it is their master’s chief solicitude to call
into existence.
But, to pass over the narrow and partial view of the subject here
displayed, even were we to indulge the writer in his singular mode of
illustration, it fails to establish his object. He says, if twenty
buckets are attached to a wheel, and four be removed, the proprietor
will be entitled to be remunerated for whatever loss of work this
removal occasioned; and if the work turned off were diminished,
from incompetency of power in the wheel, not only in the proportion
of twenty to sixteen, being one-fifth, but in the proportion of
two-fifths, then would the proprietor be entitled to receive, as
equitable compensation, two-fifths of the value in place of one.
Now it is important to reflect, that if four buckets be taken away
from the wheel, its motion may not only be diminished in a greater
ratio than two-fifths, but it may be _stopped altogether_.
This is the proper application of such an illustration to the
circumstances of a sugar-estate. If forty efficient negroes be
removed out of two hundred, being the same proportion as in the
assumed case of the buckets, will any person, acquainted with the
colonies, maintain that cultivation could continue? An estate which
had produced two hundred hogsheads of sugar would not merely be
reduced two-fifths of that amount, that is to say, to one hundred and
twenty hogsheads, but it would be altogether abandoned, because its
returns would not cover its expenses.
The author of the bucket-illustration must be sensible of its
fallacy, if he reflect that at some one point, the wheel, from its
diminution of buckets, must stop.
The question is, as regards the cultivation of sugar, will this point
soon be reached? Little is required to be said on this head, if the
proprietors are prepared to establish the fact, that even at present
they can scarcely spare one man.
Lord Bathurst acknowledges, indeed, the ultimate improbability
that the slaves could of themselves indemnify their master for the
entire capital he has sunk; and his Lordship says, when the price of
manumission rises from 100 to 500_l._, then it will be time for the
nation to come forward. A most consolatory prospect! And what are the
proprietors to do _before the nation does come forward_? When the
discussion is beginning, and before the public are disposed to put
their hands into their pockets, the proprietors buildings, machinery,
roads, dams, are going into dilapidation, and he is a ruined man.
When we prove injury in the principle, it is scarcely necessary to
descend to discuss the practice. Many colonists view with alarm
the great power given to the Protector, and other officers of
government. But let us pass over details. It is only necessary to
reflect upon what the appraiser has to do, to perceive that the
mode of working must be as bad as the design, and that the whole
process must be vague and mere guess-work. Even admitting the very
doubtful proposition, that impartial arbitrators could be selected,
numerous peculiarities may exist to obstruct the formation of a sound
judgment in regard to the value of a part of the planter’s stock, in
consequence of the manner in which the whole is rendered profitable.
It is to repeat the opinion of every intelligent person recently
returned from the colonies, to declare, that it is perfectly
impossible for any appraiser, no matter how intelligent, experienced,
or impartial, correctly to estimate the value of a slave, in order to
award compensation in the manner described by Lord Bathurst.
_Section 3._
PLANTATIONS BURDENED WITH EXPENSES, WHILE
THE GROSS RETURNS ARE DIMINISHED.
Having shown, in the preceding section, that the fixed capital of
an estate cannot be removed, we have now to show that the necessary
expenses of carrying on its cultivation cannot be diminished.
Each proprietor is by law obliged to maintain the aged, the infirm,
and the helpless, upon his estate. This duty he performs with
the utmost cheerfulness. He can hold out to his able negroes no
stronger incentive to good conduct than the assurance verified in
their parents, that they will pass the evening of life in rest and
contentment, with every little want provided for. The spectacle
itself is one of the most agreeable which can strike the eye of the
stranger; it is peculiarly grateful to the feelings of the negro; and
most forcibly illustrates the happy state of things when benefits are
made to How from the master alone. Compulsory manumission severs the
link which makes this obligation mutual, for it gives to the master
all the expense, and deprives him of the benefit.
On most West India plantations not more than one-third part of each
gang can be considered as efficient for field-cultivation, there
being included the old and infirm, the infant and the helpless, all
of whom are unserviceable, but whom the proprietor is bound by every
consideration to support.
The young and able, those in the prime of life, and under the
strongest influence of the passions, to whom all the allurements of
idleness present themselves in full force, would lose no time in
availing themselves of any opportunity to go at large.
On the contrary, the old slaves on a plantation, in whom the ardent
passions have subsided, knowing that they must soon come to be exempt
from work, and entitled to that maintenance gratuitously from their
master, which in a state of freedom they would have to earn for
themselves, would make no attempt to procure their own liberation,
but would devote their earnings, and any accumulation of money they
may have already made, to the ransom of their children.
This double operation, therefore, of the young and efficient freeing
themselves, or being freed by their aged connexions; and the
superannuated and infirm remaining to be supported by the proprietor,
would leave the burdens of a plantation undiminished, while its
ability to bear them was nearly annihilated.
With regard to the other portion, from whom no labour is obtained,
namely, the infants, the proprietor is induced at present to treat
them with the utmost care, were it only for their future value. But
the prospect of obtaining their future services might soon be changed.
Slavery, considered as an hereditary condition, is perpetuated on
the side of the mother only; if means were taken to purchase all the
female children, no calculation regarding relative value could be
made, and the property of each proprietor must become extinct with
the lives of his present negroes.
Now it is fair to apprehend, that the means of obtaining manumission
might be improperly employed, for the purpose of exterminating
slavery, regardless of all injury to the capitalist. Whether those
means would be supplied from a fund raised in this country by
speculative theorists hostile to the colonies, or, whether the
slaves themselves would be, by such persons, instigated to purchase
the female children, the result would be equally injurious to the
proprietor.
_Section 4._
CONTRARY TO THE LAW OF MORTGAGE.
Few persons require to be told, that the proportion of property
under mortgage in the West Indies is considerable. It is singular,
that, in the various discussions to which the Colonial Question has
given rise, so little attention has been directed to the interests
thus involved. Independently of the mortgagees themselves, it is the
direct advantage of the planters to have every facility open for the
raising of loans to meet temporary difficulties.
The act of Parliament, the 13 Geo. III. c. 14, invites loans from
aliens, on the security of leasehold or freehold estates, in His
Majesty’s West Indian Colonies. The 14 Geo. III. c. 79 legalizes
the taking of interest by British subjects, for sums advanced on
mortgage, and securities of any lands, tenements, hereditaments,
slaves, and other things, at the rate allowed by the law of the
colony where the mortgaged property lies. And the 3 Geo. IV. c. 47,
further regulates the rate of interest, and extends its provisions to
persons advancing capital in this country.
On the faith of these enactments, large investments on mortgage have
been made. Slaves are recognised in them, as property in fee-simple,
absolute, which has been confirmed by decisions in our courts, both
of law and equity. Consequently, all mortgagees rest their security
not on Colonial enactments, but on British Acts of Parliament; and
the law relating to mortgaged property in the colonies must be
analogous to the law relating to mortgaged property in England.
By the law of England, when woods or messuages are included in a
mortgage, none of those woods or messuages can be sold or alienated,
either collectively or in part, by the mortgagor, or by any other
known authority, even though the proceeds of such sale should be
appropriated to the benefit of the mortgagee, without the express
consent and concurrence of the latter; the law giving to him the sole
privilege of determining as to whatever may affect his security.
By the same law of England, when slaves are expressly specified in
a mortgage on West India property, neither the proprietor, nor any
other known authority, can legally sell such slaves, even though the
proceeds be applied in liquidation of the mortgage, unless it be with
the previous consent of the mortgagee.
Yet it does not appear, that Earl Bathurst has explicitly provided
for the claims of the mortgagee, who has lent his money in the
firm reliance that the law has guaranteed, both to himself and to
the mortgagor, the full effects of the stipulation of the mortgage
contract.
But if the slaves, being in law real property, on which the mortgagee
holds a lien, be permitted at their will to separate themselves from
the plantation, it must weaken the security of the mortgagee, by
removing the instruments through which the fixed capital was rendered
productive, and by the employment of which for the benefit of the
mortgagor, there was a reasonable confidence that the mortgage might
ultimately be redeemed.
And in regard to the purchase-money paid by the slave to his owner,
as the price of his liberation, if the amount go at once into the
hands of the mortgagee, it is an injustice to the debtor, because he
had a right to expect a rate of profit from his cultivation, much
higher than the mere interest paid for his loan; and it is illegal,
because it is beyond the terms of his contract with the mortgagee.
If, again, the money be deposited in some public chest, it is
illegal and unjust to both parties: unjust, because the removal of
an efficient hand entered not into the calculations of the owner of
the plantation, and by the decrease of its produce from subtracted
labour, he finds his debt not diminishing but growing larger, while
the mortgagee runs the risk of losing his money;—illegal, because the
stipulation forms no part of the mortgage contract.
When we show that illegality is added to injustice, we may close the
case on the part of the proprietor.
Let us sum up the objections.
If not one man is freed, compulsory manumission changes his
good slaves into bad ones. If any are freed, he gets inadequate
remuneration for their loss. It unjustly makes the burdens on his
estates perpetual; and in case of mortgages, is contrary to the
statute-law of the realm.
Is compulsory manumission then compatible with a fair and equitable
consideration of the rights of private property? Will any member of
the legislature be willing to confirm an act of the executive, which
is expressly contrary to the Resolution to which Parliament became
pledged in 1823?
CHAPTER IV.
INJURY TO THE WELL-BEING OF THE SLAVES.
It is presumed, that the great object contemplated by the British
nation is to civilize the blacks living in our colonies. The crime
of taking them from their own country is long past by; but it surely
cannot be intended to compensate them for their former wrongs, by
replunging them into barbarism. Yet it is to be feared that this is
the consummation to result from compulsory manumission.
_Section 1._
COUNTERACTS THE INCENTIVES TO CIVILISATION.
A free peasantry in the colonies is the desideratum sought by the
framers of the measure. It is argued, that men are creatures of
habit, and that if the negro, by voluntary industry, amass such
a sum as will procure his ransom, the habit of working will have
become firmly established, and he will continue to labour when he has
obtained his freedom.
This argument has been entirely refuted by the simple question, What
is the _motive_ for exertion in the two cases? Before the negro
became free, he had the strongest of inducements perpetually present
to his mind—the attainment of freedom, or the privilege of enjoying
himself uncontrolled. It was not for the money that he worked, but
for that which the money would procure him. When he has, at length,
attained his freedom, what motive has he to work further? Name one
object, equivalent, in his estimation, to the irksomeness of labour;
the one-inspiring aim is attained, the stimulus is gone.
But it is not enough for our purpose to show, that industry is
eventually superseded. We can establish, that the very means held
out are themselves the most efficacious in producing this pernicious
result. It is said that men are creatures of habits, and do not
speedily change them. We meet our opponents on this ground.
If you demand of a man, living in a country imperfectly civilised,
for what reason he works, he will answer, that he may purchase food.
But put the same question to a man in a state highly civilised, and
he will reply, that besides the purchase of food, he requires good
clothing, lodging, and other comforts which have become _habitual_
to him, and in which custom would make it disreputable in him not to
indulge.
Let us apply this to the negro in the West Indies. At present his
artificial wants are extremely low; and if certain habits, such as
above described, have to operate hereafter upon him as incentives
to exertion, is it not requisite that they should now begin to
be established? Suppose a negro, by rearing stock of various
descriptions, can earn a dollar per week—should he not be taught
to lay out that sum in the purchase of articles, for instance,
of personal decoration for himself and family, or of additional
conveniences in his hut, in the display of which he will henceforth
take a pride?
By such means it must be, that, in the lapse of time, he will feel
that he must work longer than is merely necessary to procure him
food, because he has other wants to satisfy.
But compulsory manumission directly counteracts this process. It
prompts him to the most sordid self-denial. Its language to him
is—“Spend not your weekly dollar, but rather hoard it with the most
scrupulous rigour; improve not the condition of your family:—in a
word, confine your wants to the state of the savage.”
The necessary consequence will be, that when he attains to freedom,
all his physical wants remain unchanged. And are these the boasted
steps which have been taken to elevate the condition of the slaves?
It is certainly a novel mode of establishing a free peasantry, to
commence by divesting them of every stimulus to exertion.
_Section 2._
DEBAUCHERY AND CRIME ENCOURAGED.
It will not have escaped the observation of the intelligent reader,
that if compulsory manumission leads to self-depreciation, by
directly suggesting and encouraging a suppression of dexterity and
usefulness, the same end may be attained by debasing the moral
character. Every species of debauchery is, in point of fact,
encouraged, to constrain the proprietor to offer little impediment to
the freedom of his slaves.
Good conduct frequently renders a negro more valuable even than
skill, and it thus becomes a principal impediment to the attainment
of his freedom. In the case of a drunken, worthless character on
a plantation, the proprietor, instead of opposing his liberation,
will be glad to get rid of him at a small amount, because he is
continually giving trouble and setting a bad example.
If there be any truth in the maxim of moralists, that the road to
vice is alluring in itself, what must be the result when men are
urged upon it, by the strongest incentives which can be supposed to
operate with them? The profligate slave may purchase his freedom
within a year,—the virtuous has to wait for it ten years, and perhaps
all his life, without success. What is this but to teach him, in the
most emphatic manner, that if he were but profligate and worthless,
he would find no such difficulties? Under the common operations
of human nature, it is impossible, when the whole moral code is
reversed—when virtue is punished and vice rewarded, that any number
of men in a state like that of the negroes will continue virtuous.
We shall here be again reminded about the certificate of good
character which is to be required. But if this question be to be
discussed at all by men of business, it is surely time to dismiss
this alleged safeguard of a certificate. It can never, as we have
shown, be of the least avail in reference to skill; and as a real
preventive it must equally prove nugatory in regard to moral conduct.
Without intending any disrespect, it must be pronounced to savour a
little of the ludicrous.
Let us suppose some measure introduced into one of the counties
of England, affecting its population as vitally as compulsory
manumission affects the slaves in our colonies, and what would be
thought of any person who should gravely propose, that a public
officer, amid other multifarious duties, should certify minutely as
to the individual character of every man in the county? If we were to
circumscribe his jurisdiction to a few square miles, or even to a few
streets of one town, the thing must plainly be impossible.
Dissimulation, hypocrisy, and craft, are often described as the
parents of crime, and they will be inevitably resorted to, to screen
the vices of the slave. His maxim will be, Let me become a vicious
subject, to lower my value with my master, and let me become an adept
in cunning to deceive the protector.
The higher his intellectual attainments, the easier will it be for
him to practise this deception with success; and while, as has been
shown in the preceding section, the beneficial attributes of future
civilisation are checked, the slave is habituated to its corruptions.
None of the palliators of the measure can get over this conclusion,
that if flagrant crime be not openly encouraged, it cannot be
denied that it is fostered secretly. How many will be the plans
laid for stealing in the dark; and for this evil there is no cure.
If the delinquent be detected, it depreciates his character, and,
consequently, his value; and, if undiscovered, it swells the fund
which is to make him free.
_Section 3._
VIRTUOUS UNION OF THE SEXES IMPEDED.
If we wish to infuse a higher sense of moral feeling among the
slaves, it is indispensable to elevate their ideas in regard to the
virtuous union of the sexes. There is no one of the measures of
amelioration which has attracted more attention, or which is more
desired by the British community.
We often hear that there is too great a temptation to immorality in
this particular among the colonists. It may undoubtedly be true;
but still illicit connexions are materially checked by the dread of
bringing into existence an offspring whose lot by birth would be
slavery.
If compulsory manumission be enforced, this salutary barrier is
removed, because the freedom of any female slave could be purchased
by the person desirous of cohabiting with her, and her offspring
would be free. Thus, on the parties colluding to take advantage of
the new measure, the greatest mischiefs would accrue to the community.
If this practice once obtained, and were found easy of
accomplishment, the female slaves would have a powerful inducement
to court illicit connexion with the whites, in preference to
marriage with men of their own condition. One of the chief objects
of amelioration would thus be frustrated, and the offspring of
these connexions become liable to be left destitute in case of the
sickness, absence, or death of the father, and consequently thrown
upon the casual charity of the public.
Besides the immorality thus in the first instance produced, how
fruitful a source of future crime is presented!
_Section 4._
TASK-WORK PREVENTED.
When we examine the measure as it will more immediately affect the
domestic government of each plantation, we find objections equally
forcible with those already stated.
In none of Mr. Canning’s orations on the subject has he been so
eloquent as when he described the effect of abolishing impending
coercion, upon the feelings of the slave. He depicted in the most
powerful manner the beautiful effects that would ensue when the slave
performed his work with alacrity, and his condition assimilated
to that of the voluntary labourer. It was here that he expatiated
upon the wisdom of allowing benefits to the slave to flow from the
master, since it would incite them to work without the necessity for
coercion. The system of task-work would be introduced, which perhaps
is the greatest practical improvement in the condition of slavery.
It is quite evident that this system can only exist with the
agreement and reciprocal feeling of both parties. The slave knows
well that his master can return to the old system at his will, and
this reflection is the chief cause for establishing the improvement.
The master knows well, that the law empowers him to keep his slaves
at work till six in the evening; but he considers that, if he can
elicit their spontaneous skill and assiduity, they will get through
an equal quantity of work by an earlier hour, and will pursue their
labour cheerfully. He is therefore disposed to approve of task-work
wherever it is practicable, both under the influence of that more
humane spirit which pervades the colonies, and from the desire to
save himself the trouble and expense of superintendence in the field.
Under this beneficial regulation, the negroes are found to complete
their day’s work by as early an hour as three or four o’clock,
having then the remainder of the day at their own disposal, to earn
money for themselves. The master never thinks of objecting to such
earnings, which benefit his people without injuring himself. On the
contrary, it is to his advantage, by increasing their contentment,
the salutary operation of which we have described in a preceding
section.
But let compulsory manumission be insisted on, and how differently
will he then contemplate the earnings of his slaves! At present their
little funds are spent in harmless amusements—in adorning their
persons, and giving Christmas and other holiday entertainments, in
which it is their delight to mimic the manners of the whites. But
change the scene, and let them employ their earnings to procure
their freedom, and what will be the master’s course? He will be
constrained, in self-defence to stop their means of earning. He
will discontinue task-work, and keep his negroes working until six
o’clock, as the law allows him.
Let us banish Utopian views from our thoughts, and consider, as
practical men, is it ever to be expected—is it reasonable, that
colonial proprietors would act otherwise? You drive them to it. They
have vested their property on the express declaration of the law,
that they are entitled to the labour of their slaves until _six
o’clock_. You cannot change this hour for an earlier one, without
infringing the rights of property, in a manner which could never
possibly be contemplated by any legislature. There is therefore no
regulation which can obviate the evil. Task-work, consisting of a
multiplicity of details, cannot in its very nature be commanded
or enforced by any other authority than that of the master. Its
beneficial effects upon the slaves consist in the master’s entering
into their feelings, and giving them encouragement precisely in the
degree that personal trouble in management is removed.
When property in slaves is made but a precarious interest, dependent
upon the slaves themselves, it is no more than the truth to assert,
that a rigorous system of coercion, such as prevailed in the colonies
some twenty years ago, would return.
If it be argued, that this involves a contradiction in reference to
the _contentment_, described as being the proprietor’s chief object
to establish, let it be recollected that he is now in a dilemma. If
he allows his slaves to accumulate earnings, they may be employed
to his own _total ruin_; he has therefore to get, as speedily as
possible, the utmost degree of work from his labourers that the law
allows him.
_Section 5._
INVIDIOUS FEELINGS EXCITED BY PROMPTING
TO A GENERAL RUSH FOR FREEDOM.
Several of His Majesty’s ministers, in various declarations and
speeches, have alluded to the institution of slavery in ancient
times; and availing themselves of the great experience thus
presented for guidance and direction, have affirmed that the same
measures of amelioration should be introduced to mitigate slavery in
the West India colonies, which had in times past mitigated slavery in
Europe. By obvious analogy, if the experience of times past be the
true guide in measures relating to amelioration, the same experience
should be the guide for measures relating to emancipation.
Let us examine, then, if this be the case.
In all ages and records of history, and in every nation on the globe
in which slavery has existed, the difficulties of manumission have
become less and less as civilisation advanced. But by the mode of
operation laid down by Lord Bathurst, the difficulties in the present
case must gradually increase. In a gang of one hundred negroes, the
first man applying for freedom would have his relative utility to
the plantation estimated at a small sum, the loss of the services of
an individual not materially impeding its cultivation. But if thirty
or forty men were to be abstracted from the estate, the sum to be
assessed as relative utility must rise in a rapidly increased ratio,
the remaining hands being wholly incompetent to render the fixed
capital productive.
Supposing, then, the measure to possess an executory principle: in
the first year, according to its projectors, a man might procure his
freedom at 100_l._ At the end of the second year, a man of precisely
the same capabilities and abstract value would find the price of
manumission risen to 150_l._ At the end of the third year it might
rise to 200_l._; and so on, progressively, until it mounted to
500_l._, or a still higher sum.
This is the operation consequent on the terms employed by Earl
Bathurst, and subsequently, indeed, explicitly avowed by him, to
illustrate the measure.
It has been considered, and repeatedly declared by His Majesty’s
ministers, that a progressive amelioration in the condition of the
slaves, the diffusion of moral instruction, the just appreciation
of the blessings of a pure religion, and a gradual reformation in
manners and opinions, should continue to exercise their salutary
influence, until slavery insensibly glided into freedom.
Yet compulsory manumission proceeds in express contradiction to this
principle. It teaches the slave, that the sooner he demands his
freedom the easier it will be for him to succeed. It discourages the
idea of delaying till the morals be improved by instruction, and it
urges him to rush forward at once by the most expeditious course,
by teaching him, that those only who delay incur the danger of
disappointment.
The public at large have been harangued about the _gradual operation_
of the measure. What will be their surprise when they understand,
that the meaning of such gradual operation simply is, that the
difficulties in attaining the object sought should become greater
by degrees instead of less? It is, indeed, a notable specimen of
legislation, to announce to the slaves,—Now that you are ignorant,
you may procure your freedom for 100_l._; but some years hence, when
you have improved by instruction, you will have to pay five times as
much.
Under such excitements, a measure which works on the predominant
passions of men, awakening in them mutual feelings of envy and
distrust, prompting each to take advantage of his fellow, and
universally forestalling the fruits of civilisation, must be utterly
incompatible with the well-being of the slave.
Who, therefore, can maintain, all the circumstances enumerated in the
foregoing sections taken in conjunction, that compulsory manumission
is in conformity with the Resolution of Parliament?
CHAPTER V.
SAFETY OF THE COLONIES ENDANGERED.
The correspondence of Mr. Canning with Mr. Galatin, lately published,
evinces plainly the importance which is attached to our transatlantic
possessions. It cannot be supposed that a minister of state will hold
one tone to a foreign power, and a different one to ourselves.
It is on occasions of public diplomacy, when our own policy is
opposed to that of the great rising republic of America, that the
full swell of public opinion makes known the extent of interest felt
by the British nation towards her colonies.
The love of dominion is natural to mankind, and few like to lose
what they have once possessed; but, with the reflecting part of
the nation, this feeling is strengthened by the consciousness that
slavery itself will be promoted by the destruction of the British
colonies. Foreign nations will take up what we abandon; and if we
are still to consume sugar, the state of the continental markets
proves to a demonstration that that consumption will be supplied by
slave-labour, and not by free labour from either east or west.
Hence the safety of the colonies not only affects the dignity of
His Majesty’s crown, which ministers have sworn to uphold; but it
combines every consideration on this question which can influence the
conduct of an independent member of the legislature.
If, then, there ever was a measure which involved a dilemma, it is
that of compulsory manumission. It must either be operative, or, from
the restrictions with which it is fenced, it must be inoperative.
Let us view it in both ways.
_Section 1._
CULTIVATION SUPERSEDED.
It is almost unnecessary to remark, that the nature of the
colonial system assumes the production in the colonies of
commodities possessing exchangeable value, to be transported to the
mother-country for sale, and tending, in the various relations of
their transport, to promote and invigorate the national commerce.
But if the negroes free themselves in the manner proposed, this
commerce must cease.
The writer of the “Remarks” has made one acknowledgment which greatly
abridges the necessity for argument or examination on this head.
He says, that no instance has yet occurred of free negroes working
steadily for hire in the field, in the British colonies; and that it
is not to be expected that they will so work, until their physical
wants have been augmented.
Now it has been shown, in the first section of the preceding chapter,
that those wants, instead of being augmented, or even established,
are effectually checked by the new measure. If there could be, in the
first instance, a hope that cultivation might hereafter be conducted
by free labourers, it is destroyed in its bud; and precisely in the
degree that the negroes are freed, will the value of the colonies
decline.
Political economy is now the fashion. All who are connected with
the Legislature, or who take a part in public affairs, are anxious
to display their proficiency in this science. Without further
comment, an appeal is made to them to pronounce, on weighing well the
reasoning referred to, if profitable cultivation in the colonies will
not be superseded.
What, then, would be the object of protecting those colonies? They
would virtually be lost to this country, in express contradiction to
the declared policy of the Legislature.
_Section 2._
REBELLION INSTIGATED.
On the other hand, let us suppose compulsory manumission inoperative;
that Government discover its latent difficulties, and that they
wish ostensibly to enforce its enactment while they fetter it with
restrictions to prevent its practical working.
Here it is conceived that still more disastrous consequences would
ensue. You tell the negro that he has a right to purchase his
freedom; and when he comes forward to claim it, he finds himself
mocked and imposed upon.
In common reason, is this the kind of legislation we are to expect
after the many warnings we have had of negro-susceptibility, and the
well-grounded conviction that there are embers, only wanting one
kindling breath to involve the whole colonies in destruction?
Since the agitation of negro-emancipation, within these few years
past, a great excitement has prevailed among the slaves, and mischief
on no common scale has occurred, merely from the delusion practised
upon the negroes as to the pretended benefits intended them. During
the insurrection in Demerara, when the insurgents were told by the
governor, of the new laws and indulgences to be granted them, they
received the boon with comparative derision; they said, to quote the
words of the Governor’s despatch, that “those things were no comforts
for them; that they were tired of being slaves; that their good King
had sent orders that they should be free, and that they would not
work any more.”
By obvious analogy we may judge of the danger if an inoperative law
be now passed. To inspire hopes which can never be realized, is at
any time bad; but in the case of the slaves, it is to render them
for ever dissatisfied with their lot, and to arouse every angry
passion in their minds. The strongest indignation, therefore, should
be expressed at attempts made to palliate the manifold errors of
the measure, or to procure the unreflecting concurrence of parties
locally interested, by representing that it might ostensibly be
allowed to pass, if rendered inoperative, because then no harm can
result from it. Such a mode of proceeding to all parties concerned,
both master and slave, would be unworthy of the British Government,
and not more disingenuous than impolitic.
Imagine, for a moment, the feelings of a slave, who, relying upon the
efficacy of the law promulgated, applies for his freedom, but finds
all a fallacy! Think of his baffled hope—the pinings of the heart—the
burning sense of injustice! And it is all-important to reflect, that
the obnoxious object of these excited passions will be the master,
or the resident proprietor. The negro will never believe that he has
been deceived by the King of England. He will decide, that the King
has conferred on him the boon, and that it has been intercepted by
combination of the colonial proprietors.
The negroes are just beginning to be sensible that amelioration
is different from what they first imagined it. Proclamations and
proceedings of the governors have tended to check their fatal
impression that a life of idleness was now at hand; but if you
disturb the existing tranquillity, if you again raise the delusive
cry of “Freedom!” may we not apprehend that kindred spirits, brooding
over their fancied wrongs, will coalesce, and discontent thus swell
into rebellion. It is vain to disguise or cloak the measure. Every
colonial proprietor knows the excitement that will always be kept
up by the anti-colonial party. “If I am to be robbed,” he will say,
“rather let me suffer at once, than be kept in perpetual dread of
ruin. If a slave worth 300_l._ comes to demand his freedom, better
suffer a loss of 100_l._ than send him back with a refusal, for
assuredly he will never be a peaceable or good subject again.” In his
own defence, therefore, he must refuse to sanction any modifications
of a measure which will equally injure himself, and endanger the
public safety.
Whether, then, compulsory manumission contain an executory principle,
or otherwise, it is incompatible with the safety of the colonies.
* * * * *
We have now contemplated the measure in every point of view, and it
must be emphatically pronounced to be contrary both to the letter and
the spirit of the Resolutions of both houses of Parliament.
CHAPTER VI.
NO JUST ANALOGY IN THE PRECEDENTS
ADDUCED BY GOVERNMENT.
A thousand precedents would never justify a bad measure—it may
therefore be deemed superfluous to offer a remark on this head; but
as Mr. Canning has argued, that whatever is adopted in one colony
can safely be introduced into all the rest, and as this maxim has
been taken for granted by many persons willing to save themselves the
trouble of thinking, it is necessary to enter into some explanation.
_Section 1._
TRINIDAD.
When the order in council for negro treatment was sent out to
Trinidad, great objections were offered, both generally, and to the
individual clauses which constitute compulsory manumission.
It is not necessary here to inquire how often that order has been
altered, or the reasons why the colonists of Trinidad have been
constrained to submit to the authority imposed upon them. We have
only to show that the case of that island differs from that of the
other British colonies.
Trinidad was originally a Spanish colony; its laws were framed
previously to the abolition of the slave-trade, and have continued
unaltered since the cession of the island to Great Britain.
Now it is apparent that, when fresh slaves can be procured,
compulsory manumission is not so objectionable; because the place
of those who purchase their freedom can be immediately filled up by
others.
It has consequently been considered that, while the slave-trade
was in active operation in the Spanish colonies, the practice of
manumission was encouraged, as increasing the means of preventing
insurrection.
But it is surely unfair to hold up to the imitation of another colony
the enactments and usages introduced by one whose laws were adapted
to a state of things so different; and to require that the provisions
of a code adapted to the existence of the slave-trade, should be
engrafted upon other codes framed since its abolition.
The order in council for Trinidad has not affected the principle of
the Spanish law, or rather the practice in the Spanish colonies,
which allows a slave to enfranchise himself by purchase. But the
British law in our settlements gives no such right whatever to a
slave.
According to those codes, the interest of an owner in his slave is
that of a fee-simple absolute: he purchased upon that tenure, he has
continued to hold upon the same, and cannot be deprived of that legal
title without a direct violation of property.
In Trinidad it is otherwise: a person purchasing a slave in that
colony, knows beforehand that he acquires only a precarious title in
such a slave, which depends on the ability of the slave to purchase
himself.
Nor has sufficient time yet elapsed to make known the great
difference in the working of the measure that must take place now
that the slave-trade has ceased, contrasted with the period when it
was in active prosecution.
It ought also to be stated, that the hardship and evils of the law
in Trinidad, even subsequent to the abolition of the slave-trade,
had not been so much felt, from the nature of its laws not being
generally known in this country: consequently, there was no
extraneous excitement upon the subject given to the minds of the
negroes.
But now, when this excitement has been given, the brief experience
already afforded, tends strongly to corroborate the arguments we have
advanced; and it is credibly asserted, that the Secretary for the
Colonies has received representations and appeals, proving evils to
have proceeded from the operation of this law.
Among these evils, theft is shown to have increased; and the
proceedings before the local magistrates are said to evince a
progressive demoralization amongst the negroes.
It is further known, that instances have occurred where the sum
assessed by the appraisers, as the price of manumission, has been
higher than the negro was able, or considered himself entitled, to
pay; and the being sent back under these circumstances has visibly
produced in him a sullenness and discontent exactly as has been
described, and in all probability as injurious to the interests of
his master, as if he had obtained his discharge at his own valuation.
From these circumstances, it is apparent that there is no analogy
between the case of Trinidad and that of the other British Colonies,
and that thus far no proper precedent is established.
_Section 2._
ST. LUCIE.
In regard to this colony, the measure has been but recently
introduced, and without the spontaneous concurrence of its
inhabitants. It was established there by the force of arbitrary
authority. There was no adequate court or power, similar in
constitution and functions to the Assemblies in the other islands,
to resist its promulgation; and the threat conveyed in the despatch
of Earl Bathurst to the Governor, thus amounted to an imperative
mandate for the adoption of the measure as law in the colony.
Is this a precedent?
_Section 3._
BERBICE.
The case of Berbice is still more flagrant. This colony possessed,
a short time back, a council composed of persons having property
at stake. Before the enactments relating to the slaves in that
colony were brought forward, this council was dismissed, and another
arbitrarily appointed, consisting of persons having no interest in
the cultivation of the colony.
It was previously declared, that the new laws relating to the slaves,
in whatever way they might be finally settled, should not be carried
into operation at Berbice, unless the same measures were at the same
time adopted in Demerara. In the latter colony, all the measures
relating to amelioration were received, and compulsory manumission
alone rejected; but in Berbice, the new council, so appointed and so
composed, passed the latter measure contrary to the wish of every
proprietor in the colony.
It ought moreover to be stated that, before the new laws were
promulgated in Demerara, they were sent home to Lord Bathurst for
confirmation, upon which his Lordship observes,—“The King has been
graciously pleased to approve the decision that you adopted, of
referring the draft of the Act to his Majesty, for his consideration,
instead of immediately promulgating it as a law in the colony.”
But how does the new Council of Berbice act? The most important
of all the new measures they carry at once into effect; that is
to say, they allow no opportunity for parties in England to carry
remonstrance or explanation to the foot of the throne.
Again, let us ask, is this a precedent? What is the meaning of
the term? does it not warrant the inference, in this case, that
some assembly, composed of parties interested, have given their
concurrence? But how marked is the difference between a council
composed of persons possessing little or no property in slaves, and
a court where several of the members hold large plantations, and are
deeply interested in the permanent prosperity of their colony.
The possession of this large stake by the members, and the
circumstance of having delegated interests to represent, peculiarly
conduce to safe and practicable legislation. Such circumstances
present a security against precipitancy,—prompt to a careful and
minute consideration of all local peculiarities,—and procure for
every public measure a full and patient examination of all its
relations, both direct and contingent, before it is permitted to be
put in execution.
And further, in respect to any one of these West India cases, has
there elapsed a time sufficient to enable us to estimate the policy
of the experiment, and still less to pronounce upon its fitness for
the whole of our West Indian possessions?
_Section 4._
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
How this colony should be referred to as a precedent it is difficult
to explain. Its climate differs materially from that of the West
Indies. In the latter, the evils apprehended from giving freedom to
the slaves arise from the impossibility of procuring free labourers
to supply their place. It is but a very short time since emigration
from this country to the Cape of Good Hope was greatly encouraged;
and it is ascertained, by experience, that Europeans can work without
injury or inconvenience in that climate.
Thus the supply of voluntary labourers not only existing, but
increasing in that colony, the inducements to perpetuate slavery must
progressively expire, and slaves may consequently be freed without
injury to the property of their owners, or danger to the public
safety.
From this obvious difference in physical circumstances between the
West India colonies and the Cape of Good Hope, there is no just
analogy between the two; and though compulsory manumission may be
enacted in the one, it cannot, therefore, be taken as a model for
imitation to the other.
This straining after inapplicable precedent clearly indicates
deficiency of argument.
No enactment containing inherently a principle of evil, even though
acceded to willingly, or acquiesced in passively, by individual
bodies, should ever be set up by a wise government as an example for
general adoption.
* * * * *
It has been more than once remarked in Parliament, by persons of
high character, that the precedent generally existing throughout the
Spanish colonies served as a sufficient ground for the measure.
But there are two points which should never be omitted in reflecting
on the question:
I. As to the opportunity of procuring other labourers.
II. The difference of amount sunk in fixed capital, between the
Spanish colonies and those of Great Britain.
In regard to the first, fresh labourers can be procured in the
Spanish colonies, but cannot in the British; and in regard to the
second, there must surely be some difference in the working of a
measure when the amount of capital to be withdrawn varies in the
proportion of 20,000_l._ in the one case, to a few hundreds in the
other.
CHAPTER VII.
RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHING TO MINISTERS IF
THEY ENFORCE COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
Whoever notices the levity of manner with which this question is
treated, would imagine that our constitution had undergone a change,
and that His Majesty’s advisers were relieved from responsibility
for the acts of the executive. On any occasion it is a rash step to
counsel the crown to important measures before a full investigation
has been instituted. But when a step is taken so contrary to the laws
of the realm, as, by eminent law-authorities, Compulsory Manumission,
in regard to mortgaged property, is conceived to be, _responsibility_
ceases to be an idle term, and circumstances may arise from it
to disturb the peace of a minister of state much longer than he
anticipates.
It can never be too often repeated that, so far as legislation for
the negroes is concerned, what is once done is irrevocable. In other
public measures, an opportunity is afforded to a minister, when he
makes a false step, to change his policy by a dexterous manœuvre.
But no such resource being afforded in the West India Question, we
should conclude that more cautious deliberation would in the first
instance be exercised, and that a _full examination_ would take
place before excitement was created by announcing even the heads of
a new measure. The proceedings hitherto have been on a principle
directly opposite. While the Irish Question remains undecided, though
more than a generation has passed by since it commenced; and while
the Corn Question has stood over until argument on the subject is
exhausted: In the West India Question—where, wrong measures being
once taken, all remedy is hopeless—the parties whose whole property
is at stake cannot be allowed more than the lapse of a few weeks, to
put on record all their objections to the most essential innovations.
This presents an anomaly in the history of public measures, and
it can only be accounted for by supposing that ministers, amid
their many duties, have completely undervalued the importance of
the measure now pending. This conclusion is confirmed by what is
understood to be their language to independent members of the
legislature whose suffrage they solicit in future discussion. They
say the principal opposition of the West Indians is no more than
idle and transient clamour. It is merely of a piece with what has
been always witnessed. When the abolition of the slave-trade was
under discussion, did we not hear the cry, that our ancient colonies
would be ruined? That great measure was carried, yet no ruin ensued.
When the Registry Bill was brought in, had we not a similar clamour,
that the most dangerous excitement among the slaves would be the
consequence? That point, too, was carried; yet no such direful
evils attended it. Again, when the recent Amelioration Clauses
were proposed, how furious was the opposition in the colonies,—the
proprietors there were to be utterly ruined. Many of these clauses
have since been enacted, even where opposition was strongest at the
first, and yet no injury or change has taken place! What is the
inference in regard to compulsory manumission? We have strenuous
opposition at present, it is true; but when the measure is once
carried, that will soon subside, and all the frightful features of
danger which have alarmed the colonists will turn out to be mere
phantoms of the imagination.
Now, in answer, may we not allege, in the first place, that the
objections urged against those former measures were not groundless.
Our abolition of the slave-trade, without securing the effectual
concurrence of foreign powers in a similar act, has transferred from
British to foreign colonies the principal supply of Europe with
sugar, and without the smallest benefit to Africa. The Registry Bills
are an enormous tax on our impoverished colonies, and it is not to
them we owe the extinction of our colonial slave-trade. Of our recent
Amelioration Clauses, the effect in diminishing production is as yet
more certain than that of increased benefit to the negro-population.
In the second place, may we not pronounce that the case we are now
submitting is very different from any of those cited?
But in this age of superficiality, where all laborious investigation
seems exploded, and when a well-turned period of declamation in
Parliament sways the nation, let us take another mode of pointing out
the difference of this case.
In those important measures which were passed some time back, the
Government carried a great number of colonial proprietors living
in this country along with them. How different, then, on _primâ
facie_ evidence, must be the nature and bearings of the measure now
proposed, when colonial proprietors, who have always acted with
ministers, are constrained, as a solemn duty in defence of their
properties and of their families, to oppose it strenuously! It is
evident, that to occasion such a feeling, there must be something in
the measure alarmingly important, and demanding the most cautious
scrutiny.
In former times, the letters sent out by colonial proprietors in
England to their friends in the colonies impressed upon the latter,
to do all that they were able, to silence clamour in England; but
with regard to compulsory manumission, the lesser evil is chosen,
and the admonition is, “Beware of passing this measure, and thus
committing yourselves by your own act. _Throw all the responsibility
upon ministers, that you may hereafter have full claims for
indemnification._”
The question then resolves itself into this,—Are ministers,
considering the situation in which they are placed, and having a
due regard to their own fame, prepared to take this responsibility
upon themselves? Do they rely upon the passing opinions of the day
for their support? Lord Bathurst says, in his despatches, that
the colonial legislature “may be assured, that from the final
accomplishment of this object this country will not be diverted.”
Now it may be true that, with the unthinking populace, the extinction
of slavery is desired; but what practical statesman would take this
vague expression of feeling for his guide? It may safely be affirmed,
that the intelligent portion of the community are aware of the
difficulties, and expect from Government, not what is theoretically
to be desired, but what is practically and wisely attainable.
They are not prepared to lose our West India colonies, which are
believed to contribute largely to the prosperity and strength of the
kingdom; nor are they at all disposed to inflict injustice upon their
fellow-subjects, knowing well, that whatever odium may now attach to
the colonial proprietor, the charge of having countenanced slavery
is one which he shares with the whole British nation.
But it ought further to be known, and well reflected on by His
Majesty’s ministers, that humane and enlightened individuals, not
anxious for the political so much as the moral grandeur of the
country, who waive every notion of expediency, and consider the cause
of humanity as paramount, are beginning to entertain doubts as to the
wisdom of the proceedings of Government.
This is not vague opinion, but is founded on weighty reasons.
FIRST: That it is the object of British humanity to exalt the
entire African race, and to accomplish it as a matter of genuine
philanthropy in the most general and efficient manner.
It appears by parliamentary documents, that as cultivation, during
some years past, has decreased in the British colonies, precisely in
the same degree has the slave-trade of foreigners increased.
To ruin or deteriorate the British colonies is thus to encourage
the horrors of the slave-trade, and to increase the sum of African
suffering.
Therefore, it being the object of the British nation to abridge that
suffering, and not to make a mere display of sensibility, if the
proposed measures can be proved to be destructive of cultivation in
the British colonies, their spirit must be pronounced to be contrary
to the sentiments of the country.
And, SECONDLY: That having long since committed the crime of
transporting the negroes to our West India colonies, it is expected
by the British nation, that the welfare of future generations will be
contemplated; and that, hereafter, a black society may be witnessed,
possessing in itself the attributes, moral, intellectual, and
political, of a civilized people.
So strongly does this sentiment pervade the nation, that it is
common to hear the inquiry—“What are the negroes to do when free?”
implying the belief that rash interference may have proceeded far to
accomplish the object, but that judicious legislation has stopped
short on the threshold.
If we were to make an appeal to Lord Bathurst, and to all who have
taken an active part in the promotion of compulsory manumission, must
they not acknowledge, that since the agitation of the subject in
1823, a considerable and perceptible change has taken place in public
opinion, in consequence of the inquiry relative to free labour; and
that the idea of having a free negro-peasantry labouring under a
tropical climate for hire is impracticable and hopeless.
Does not, then, the whole question depend on free labour?
We cannot but infer, that when the relations and consequences of
granting freedom to the negroes by compulsion are fully understood in
all their widely-spreading effects, the opinion of the country will
be as strongly expressed in reprobation, as Earl Bathurst pronounces
it at present to be in approbation of the speedy adoption of the
measure.
Without any disrespect it may be stated, that some of our ministers,
who are upborne by the current of public applause, have had
sufficient experience of the fickleness of popularity. Let us recall
to mind the wise precept of Mr. Canning in 1819—“Speak not the _will_
of the populace, but consult their _benefit_.”
We appeal to each member of parliament to further this counsel.
The question of negro-_emancipation_ is virtually before them. It
is conceived, by all those whose properties are at stake, to be
presented in its most objectionable form, and they unanimously oppose
it. Before deciding on the subject, let every member reflect on the
sentiments of two of our greatest statesmen.
Mr. Pitt, in every discussion in which negro-emancipation was
agitated, pronounced, that it was an act which must “flow from the
master alone.”
When that presiding genius of the country’s commercial greatness was
no more—when Mr. Fox had coalesced with Lord Grenville,—and above
all, when the whole anti-colonial party, with Mr. Wilberforce at
its head, had joined his ranks, Mr. Fox, in the full tide of his
popularity and his power, declared—
“That the idea of an act of parliament to emancipate the slaves in
the West Indies, _without the consent and concurrent feeling of all
parties concerned_, BOTH IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN THAT, would not only
be mischievous in its consequences, but totally extravagant in its
conception, as well as impracticable in its execution.”
THE END.
LONDON:
Printed by W. CLOWES,
Stamford-street.
------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed (e.g., “West India” and
“West Indian”) and added (e.g., “sugar-plantation” and “sugar-estate”),
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings and inconsistent
or archaic usage in the text have been retained.
Page 3: “particular acts ema nate” replaced by “particular acts emanate”
Page 63: “announce to theslaves” replaced by “announce to the slaves”
------------------
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Compulsory manumission : Or, an examination of the actual state of the West India question" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.