HC Deb 02 June 1815 vol 31 cc596-606
Mr. Gordon,

on rising to comment upon the conduct of a person who had enjoyed an important situation, and was of a respectable character, thought it necessary to disclaim all motives of personality towards the individual, and to declare that he was actuated only by a sense of duty to the public. He was totally unacquainted with governor Ainslie, and nobody would feel more gratified than himself, if his conduct with reference to the two situations he had held at Grenada and Dominica should be perfectly justified. The papers relative to the transactions at Grenada had been a long time before the House; he should therefore only briefly mention the circumstances contained in them, on which his observations would be founded. It appeared that general Ainslie, on being appointed vice-governor of Grenada, had issued, in November, 1812, a proclamation, directing all free persons of colour in the island to appear before him, and take the oath of allegiance under pain of being sent away; and the time given was only one week for those persons to appear from all parts of the settlement. A person named Jean Michell came and took the oath in November 1812; but in April following, the governor, with a corporal and two privates, went to the house of Michell, and delivered him into the custody of the cage-keeper, and after being imprisoned he was punished by receiving twenty lashes: he was put into a sort of black hole, and fed for three days on bread and water. On the fourth day, his friends applied for a copy of the document under which he was imprisoned, in consequence of which the governor ordered him to be released, but gave no reason for his conduct. When, however, it was understood that civil proceedings were about to be instituted against him, he sent and offered him a sum of money, which the man accepted, but afterwards thought proper to return. The governor then had him sent away, and went himself to the printer of the Gazette, directing him to insert a notice giving an account of those proceedings, and describing Michell to be a free man of colour, who had been shipped off the island in consequence of not having taken the oath of allegiance. The consequence was, that an investigation took place by a petition of the inhabitants; and the resolutions which a committee of the Assembly agreed to were, that the House were convinced of the loyal principles and good conduct of the free men of colour on the island, and were resolved to support them; they added, that it had been proved by evidence, that the liberty of these persons had been grossly abased by general Ainslie, and censured his conduct in strong and indignant terms. The hon. gentleman, after reading these resolutions, contended that the evidence against Michell was ex parte; and when an action was commenced against Green, the cage-keeper, the plea was, that Michell was a slave. But the proclamation was only addressed to free men, and therefore the governor had no right to take a slave and flog him, merely because he might be found walking about. The result of the trial, in which the cage-keeper was the nominal defendant, was, that only 5l. damages were given against the governor, with the right of remission of it, if it could be proved that Michell was a slave. Michell was then advised, in consequence of the smallness of the damages, to let the business rest. On a complaint of this transaction being sent home, lord Bathurst wrote to governor Ainslie in reprobation of his conduct. His letter was dated the 19th of March, 1814; and, after animadverting on the circumstances, it added, that any such conduct in future would call for the severest reprehension. Michell went to Dominica, to procure a certificate of his not having been a slave: but on his return, he was not suffered to land, because he had been sentenced to be flogged. General Ainslie afterwards went, as governor, to Dominica, at which time there was an insurrection amongst the slaves, or as they were variously called, Maroons, runaways, or deserters from their masters. On his assuming the government of Dominica, this evil had proceeded to a considerable extent.—The hon. gentleman said he did not mean to object to the quelling this insurrection, but to the proceedings of the governor in reducing it. He published a proclamation, offering unconditional pardon to those who returned to their duty, but declaring the utmost rigour against those who held out, adding that neither age nor sex should be spared, but that all should be indiscriminately put to the bayonet. It would be said, that this was only a proclamation in terrorem, and that it had never been acted upon. He was ready to admit that this was so far true; but, to say the least of it, it was extremely indiscreet and unjustifiable. That it was not acted upon, might be owing to the good sense of the officers; for if any of them had acted with such violence, they would have found their justification in the document in question. There was, indeed, a declaration of a captain Savarin, stating, that he had never received orders to put to death any runaway, but that he had sent for weeks together agents to the Maroons, to treat with and persuade them to return home; and it was even customary for the men not to return their firings. This was certainly, much in explanation of the proclamation, and in proof of its non-execution. But there was another document, being an account of the number of Maroons killed, &c., from which it appeared that 12 had been killed in action, 42 punished, and 530 restored to their owners, many of whom had been from 10 to 35 years in the woods. Now, it would be curious to know how the owners of such persons could be ascertained, as well as the identity of the slaves. The war, in a great degree, resembled the Maroon war some years ago in Jamaica. By prescription, from the length of time they had been away, many of these persons might be deemed free people, and he hoped it would be proved, at least, that all the men so handed over as slaves were runaways. There were many testimonies in favour of general Ainslie from respectable people in Dominica, and even from the Assembly which he himself had dissolved, on the ground that it had shown inattention to the interests of those whom it represented. If he understood the hon. Secretary opposite, he had told him, that governor Ainslie had satisfied Government as to his conduct, and that it was their intention to send him back again. It was in consequence of this information that he had moved for the printing of the papers, that an opportunity might be given for his justification. He had, however, besides to state, that information had been received in a letter from Dominica, that general Ainslie, on making a tour through the island, had directed four black soldiers to attend him, and they not arriving in time, he, without any court-martial, directed them to be flogged. For this conduct the government of Dominica were determined to pause on admitting him back. There was another case of still more importance than any one of the rest, and it was on this account that it was his intention to move for a committee of investigation, that whatever related to the general's conduct might appear at once. A most respectable gentleman, Mr. Aberdeen, a man of large property in the island, had received a letter here in London from his manager, dated the 4th of last June, in which he stated, that information having been given to governor Ainslie that two slaves were in communication with the runaways camp, and had sold them some provisions, which, however, were not the property of their masters, he ordered the writer, the manager in question, to have them arrested, and sent to him into the town. They were sent, but this person did not accompany them, because he was not aware that any violent proceedings were in contemplation; but in a few days afterwards a messenger arrived from the governor, with a box upon his head, and a letter, saying, "I have executed one of the two slaves you sent me, after being tried by a court-martial, and this is his head, which you are to place on a pole upon the estate!"—(Hear, hear!) The other slave was imprisoned, and afterwards shipped off the island. The hon. gentleman said he had asked Mr. Aberdeen, why, if he had received this letter so long ago, he had not taken some steps upon it before now; and he answered, that he had communicated it to the Secretary of State, adding that he had no idea Government would ever have thought of sending the general back to the island. On the whole, to say the least, governor Ainslie had been guilty of such great indiscretion, that he appeared ignorant of the colonial laws, and was unfit to be a governor. All such persons ought to be of mild dispositions, and not given to passion. The hon. gentleman then adverted to the condition of the slaves in our colonies, which was susceptible of great amelioration; and he called on those members who had so nobly exerted themselves in effecting the abolition of the trade, to reflect that much remained to be done. He had some hundreds of slaves under his own protection, and he felt that he should best perform his duty and consult his interest by considering how he could ameliorate their situation.

He concluded by moving, "That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of George Robert Ainslie, esq. while Vice-governor of Grenada, and Governor of Dominica, and to report their opinion to the House."

Sir Robert Heron

spoke at considerable length in defence of the character of governor Ainslie. He said, be would first advert to the charge against him, of having ordered four black soldiers to be flogged without trial. The whole of the story rested on what purported to be the letter of one Joanna Clapham, who kept a gin-shop at Roseau, in the island of Dominica. This document, however, and the charge itself, were now under the consideration of the Commander-in-chief, and he would not presume to anticipate what would be his Royal Highness's decision upon it. The next charge was that of flogging, without trial, a free man of colour, of the name of Jean Michell, while acting-governor of the island of Grenada. In regard to this he would observe, that governor Ainslie found the island in a very disturbed state, it being chiefly inhabited by disaffected Frenchmen, who bad refused to take the oaths. This Jean Michell was a native of Mariegalante, and had recently arrived on the island. He allowed that the governor had acted indiscreetly in punishing this man, before having made sufficient inquiry whether he had taken the oaths or not; but he had little doubt that the case would never have been heard of, had it not been to gratify the revenge of a person of the name of Adye, who had acted as coroner of the island, and president of the senate, but who was prosecuted and fined at the instance of the governor, for the fraudulent sale of government lands in the colony. Hence the story of Jean Michell was brought forward, which never would otherwise have been heard of. But from a paper which had been presented to the House, it appeared that the real charge against this Michell was his having robbed one Lawrence by means of a false key, and it was on this account that he was flogged. He admitted it to be indiscreet in governor Ainslie to have ordered this punishment of twenty lashes by his own authority; but it in fact amounted to mercy to the offender, as, had he been tried in a court of justice, his punishment would probably have been much more severe. When the governor heard of the strong sensation which the proceeding had created among the people of colour in the colony, he sent this Michell money as a compensation, which he at first took, but afterwards sent back, and brought his action against the governor in the Colonial Court, in which he succeeded. The only reason why the governor did not contradict the report of Michell having been flogged for not taking the oaths, was that it had the good effect of bringing down all the others in a similar situation to take the oaths. The only damages which the Colonial Court gave to Michell in his action against the governor were 5l.; so that they did not estimate very highly the injuries he had sustained. Under all the circumstances, he thought that governor Ainslie had been already sufficiently punished for his indiscretion. He had paid the fine, and, what must have painfully affected him as a man of honour, he had received the reprimand of lord Bathurst. It was probably the zeal of gentlemen for the black population of the West Indies that induced them to push this inquiry: but they should recollect that it was possible enthusiasm might go beyond justice: that they also owed something to their white fellow-countrymen, and that they ought not to export the whole of their benevolence to a foreign market, but reserve some of it for home consumption. The next charge to which he should advert, was the governor's conduct towards the Maroons. The House should know that these Maroons were, in the island of Dominica, entirely composed of runaway slaves, who took refuge in the centre of the island, which abounded in the most unapproachable fastnesses, whence they could issue forth to the destruction of the planters, and bid defiance to attack. Governor Ainslie, on his arrival on the island, formed a corps of black rangers for their reduction. He also issued a proclamation sanguinary certainly in its terms, but intended for intimidation, not to be literally executed. The Mutiny Act, which Parliament passed annually, was most sanguinary in its enactment, for it denounced death almost in every line; and yet who ever thought of shooting a soldier or a militiaman for every offence to which the punishment of death was there attached? At the time the proclamation was issued, the island was in danger of being ruined by these marauders: the most rigorous measures were absolutely necessary, as these Maroons had shot both the messengers whom the governor sent to them: but the proclamation had ultimately the effect of saving even the lives of men who lived by robbery, and whose occupation was murder. The rangers and the proclamation set to work together: the former were instructed by the governor himself to act with the greatest lenity, and accordingly only twelve of the robbers were killed during the whole war, while the rangers were often seen bringing in the half-starved women and children of the Maroons, for the purpose of taking care of them. As to the case of the two men who were convicted of selling provisions and ammunition to the runaway negroes, only one of them was executed; and it was his head that was sent in a box to another part of the island, for the purpose of being exhibited in terrorem. Upon the whole, it appeared to him, that the conduct of governor Ainslie had been vigorous, laudable, and patriotic. This was the light in which it was viewed by every class of inhabitants in the island, who had, in an address to that gentleman, expressed their anxious wish for his return among them. He could not, therefore, concur in the present motion, which went to inflict the punishment of preventing his return.

Sir Samuel Romilly

thought, that unless the House proved false to all its professions for the benefit of the black population of the West Indies, it could not refuse to institute the inquiry now called for. As to what the hon. gentleman had said of some of the charges originating in private revenge, it should be recollected, that the atrocious murders perpetrated by one Hodges, in one of the islands, would never have been brought before the public, but for a private quarrel. He was surprised that the friends of governor Ainslie should oppose an inquiry. Here sir Samuel read the depositions of several persons, all going to prove that Michell was flogged for not taking the oaths; bat whatever the offence, the punishment was inflicted without trial, in the public market-place, and by order of a British governor, whose special duty it was to protect the people of colour. This duty the West India governors had been specially charged to perform, in a circular addressed to them by the duke of Portland in 1797. Was the offence to be passed over, because a West Indian jury, with all its prejudices against people of colour, had given Michell only 5l. damages? The House, to act consistently with the principles it professed, ought to study the immediate amelioration of the state of the negroes and people of colour, and the gradual abolition of slavery itself. This he understood to be the ultimate object of all our wishes. Was it not necessary to inquire into the situation of Dominica, before the House could own a proclamation which condemned men women, and children, to destruction? Here sir Samuel referred to some of the documents, from whence he drew the conclusion that there was no war on the island, but merely the fear of future disturbance. It appeared that no less than 700 of these Maroons had been reduced to slavery; from which he suspected, that one great cause of the war proclaimed against them, was to procure slaves that could not be obtained by importation. He could not admit that to whip a man in the public street for a crime which governor Ainslie must have known he had not committed, was to be frittered away and shielded under the mild and gentle term which the hon. baronet had given it—"an act of indiscretion." This governor Ainslie punished a man for not having done that which he had made oath before the governor himself be had done; but in order to justify his own misconduct, he added injury to insult, and out of a freeman, he, by dint of power vested in himself by means of his office, made his victim a slave, pretended he had been a slave in Dominica, to which island this same general Ainslie had been recently appointed governor; and when this unfortunate man proceeded to Dominica, to obtain evidence of his not having been a slave, governor Ainslie exerted his power there also against him, and by virtue of that power, prevented him from landing on the island, and thus deprived him of every possible means of proving he was not a slave, nor ever bad been a slave in Dominica, as had been most unjustifiably alleged against him. These were acts which could not but arouse the indignation of every man of the least degree of feeling and regard to justice; and he thought them quite sufficient to demand the committee moved for by his hon. friend.

Mr. W. Smith

thought governor Ainslie, like all other persons in the West India islands, must know that the greatest injustice that could be done to an individual was to deprive him of his freedom. Michell, it appeared, had first been punished for nothing at all—for not taking an oath in obedience to a proclamation of the governor; which oath, it was proved by several witnesses, he had taken in the presence of governor Ainslie himself; and those who had treated him thus, endeavoured to escape from the consequences, by depriving him of the most precious thing he possessed—his freedom. This was the paltry, mean, base, and abominable defence which had been set up, and this defence made him more indignant than all the rest. Lord Bathurst, on perusing the papers which were submitted to him on behalf of governor Ainslie, had said, that the justification of his conduct was not complete. He thought the noble lord must have felt they furnished no justification at all. All the evidence brought forward to prove Michell was a slave, had been obtained from the island of Dominica, where the power of governor Ainslie had been at that time predominant, and obtained from that island to which Michell had repaired, in order to prove that he was free. The evidence of his being free was tea times stronger than that which had been adduced to prove that he was a slave. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the House would consult its own dignity, by acceding to the motion.

Mr. Goulburn

said, that nothing could be more candid, than the manner in which the hon. gentleman had brought this subject forward. He, however, must oppose the motion on this principle, that to entertain it would, be to prejudge the question between, Michell and governor Ainslie, which was to be tried in this country, in those courts where the whole of the transactions could be more satisfactorily investigated than they could be by that House. This stated, he trusted it would be felt that to anticipate the inquiry would be to defeat it. He briefly replied to some of the statements made in the course of the debate. He asserted the proclamation to have been issued in consequence of murders and depredations which had been committed upon the whites, and when the general state of things had become such as to threaten the loss of the island. From all that he knew on the subject, he had reason to believe the result of the inquiry would be satisfactory to the friends of general Ainslie.

Mr. Gordon

briefly replied. He wished to observe with respect to the trial which had been mentioned as coming on in this country, that the difficulties which must first be surmounted had to him appeared so considerable, that he had thought he ought not to suffer what to him appeared so remote, to prevent the present motion being made. On an understanding that governor Ainslie would not return to Dominica, till this matter had been explained, he would consent to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Goulburn

said, he would not return till after the trial, which he apprehended would afford every requisite explanation.

Mr. W. Smith

wished it also to be under- stood that he would not be appointed. This was a material point, as the salary attached to the situation was paid from the time at which the appointment took place.

Mr. Goulburn

stated the appointment to have taken place some time since, but he had been ordered to remain in England to answer the charge. He presumed it was not desired that he should be dismissed, as that would be to prejudice the question.

The motion was then withdrawn by the consent of the House.