STATE OF SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.

HC Deb 19 May 1826 vol 15 cc1284-366

Mr. Brougham

rose to bring forward his motion. He first desired, that the following resolutions of the House,-agreed to on May 15th, 1823, should be read:—

"That, it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures for ameliorating the condition of the slave-population in his majesty's colonies.

"That, through a determined and persevering, but at the same time judicious and temperate, enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to progressive improvements in the character of the slave-population, such as may prepare them for a participation in those rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of his majesty's subjects.

"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."

Mr. Brougham

then observed, that at the time the resolutions which had been just read were adopted by the House, the only doubt which existed was, whether they went far enough in propounding measures, or recognizing the necessity of measures for carrying into effect the scheme of policy which the almost unanimous opinion and sentiments of the country suggested, or offered to the House; but all men agreed, and declared by their votes upon that occasion, that this was the least measure of justice that ought to be meted out to the body of the people in the colonies. His majesty's government proceeded, after these resolutions were passed, to take steps for the purpose of recommending to the colonial legislatures in certain colonies, the adoption of measures calculated to effect the object in view, and other steps were taken, calculated to carry these principles into effect in the colonies not subject to the legislative power. It should be his object on the present occasion to call the attention of the House to the manner in which the suggestion of the king's government had been complied with on the part of those colonies which had legislatures of their own. With respect to those colonies which were under the immediate power of the Crown, the inquiry was, in all respects, much shorter, but it could hardly be said to belong to the present question. It would be necessary for him to enter with some minuteness into details, but he should endeavour to avoid every thing like declamatory statement—to avoid as much as possible general observations, however much they might be called for by the circumstances of the case. He trusted that the paramount importance of the subject, the deep and universal interest taken in it in all parts of the empire, and the great practical consequences to which the discussion, one way or other, was sure to lead, would prove his apology to the House for what might otherwise justly be deemed hardly bearable details. The matters in question consisted of fact, and fact only; and it was by a minute investigation of fact alone that we could arrive at the right conclusion. He had stated that the Crown, having the legislative power over the conquered colonies, proceeded to take measures for effecting the purpose of parliament and the country. This was done in the first instance in Trinidad, one of the most important of those colonies, by issuing an order in council for the better government of the slaves. This order having been made the subject of observation in this House, he did not mean to enter at length into the discussion of it; nevertheless, as it formed the basis of proceedings which had subsequently been adopted in such of these conquered colonies as had been called upon to do any thing at all, and the basis also of recommendations given, or about to be given, to the colonies which had legislatures of their own, it was obviously necessary that he should, if it were in no other way than by way of protest, state what he deemed to be objections to this order in council. Almost all the recommendations contained in the document alluded to, he admitted to be praiseworthy, and also the manner in which it was proposed to carry them into effect, as detailed by lord Bathurst, and the right hon. Secretary opposite. There were, however, some points in which they appeared to him to have fallen short of the object. One highly important consideration, in any attempt towards ameliorating the condition of the slaves, was the admissibility of slave evidence. Now, this privilege was confined, in the first place, to such as obtained a certificate from a clergyman of having made such a progress in moral improvement as enabled them to form an idea of the obligation of an oath. His objection to this was, that he saw no reason why a slave, whose evidence was required, should not be left in the same situation as a witness in this country, where the court was to judge of the admissibility of testimony. In our courts, a Pagan, Mahometan, or a person of no religion at all, might be tendered as a witness, and if no objection was taken, he was examined. It was not requisite that the person should believe in revealed religion; but if he was found, on preliminary examination, to be a person who admitted the existence of a God, and a future state, his evidence was straightway admitted. In this Trinidad order there was certainly a most laudable praiseworthy liberality, for the certificate of any minister of religion, of whatever sect, was considered as sufficient. He objected also to the manner in which the evidence was confined. For example: a slave was not allowed to give evidence in a civil cause, in which his master was a party. He could not see the propriety of this restriction. The next head to which he felt himself bound to refer, respected the office of protector of the slaves. It appeared to him, that the resolution which prohibited that very important officer, the protector of the slaves, from holding a plantation, or becoming a proprietor of slaves, was by no means sufficient for securing the object of government. The protector of the slaves was, by that article, only disqualified from holding property in plantations, or slaves, within the colony of Trinidad; but he might be a planter, or slave proprietor, in any other; nay, more, he might be the owner of domestic slaves in the colony of Trinidad itself. It appeared to him, therefore, that those feelings which influenced the dictation of that restriction upon the protector of the slaves were more likely to operate in a contrary direction with respect to the domestic slaves, which the protector was permitted to possess. Moreover, the principle of that restriction did not extend to the subprotector and his subordinates, whom it was more important to restrain than the protector himself; for he having a duty almost similar to that of inspector, did not come so much, or, indeed, so im- mediately in contact with the slaves as his deputies, who ought therefore to be more restricted, and therefore it was, that his hon. friend, the member for Norwich, in the motion which he had brought forward respecting the colony of Berbice, had been particularly anxious that the measure of the government of Trinidad, and which had been partially adopted in Demerara, should have been carried further. Now, in the first place, with respect to the abolition of Sunday markets, how did the measure apply? It prospectively put them down altogether; that was, after certain things should happen, be done, or be brought about, then the Sunday markets should be abolished; so far it was merely conditional, and, indeed, the only thing it ordered directly was, that the Sunday market should be over by ten o'clock in the forenoon. In cases where the market should be distant from the residence of a planter, what was the consequence? Why, that the distance necessarily impeded the operation of the measure favourably for the slave; for his whole day would be consumed in going to and returning from market. Then, though the slaves were prohibited from being worked compulsorily on the Sabbath, yet no equivalent was provided for them for the Joss of their own labour on that day if they themselves should occupy the Sabbath, either for religious purposes, or as a day of rest, and should not work their own provision-grounds. Consequently, in this respect, the order was imperfect in its professed object, inasmuch as it provided no substitute which should prevent the slave voluntarily working on the Sabbath. The separation of families was the fourth head to which he should briefly call the attention of the House—the separation of husbands and wives, and parents and children. That was provided against, indeed, but only in case of a judicial sale. Now, so far was that from giving effect to the intentions pf government, that it was of much more importance that the principle should be applied to voluntary sales; that was, to all sales voluntary and judicial.—The last of those regulations to which he should allude, respected the penalty imposed upon slaves who should make unfounded accusations against their masters. By the present regulation, if a slave charged his master with cruelty, and the case should be proved, then there was a fine imposed upon the master; but, if the slave, made a groundless charge, and the magistrates should certify that the charge was groundless, what was then done? Why, the slave was delivered back to his master, who was authorized to inflict upon him any number of lashes, not exceeding twenty-five. He took this to be an erroneous principle of legislation altogether. First, it was erroneous to punish the slave summarily in that way for a groundless complaint. If he had made a groundless complaint, it should be matter of regular investigation: and if he was found guilty he should be judicially, not summarily, punished. But, if a punishment of a summary nature should be inflicted, he held this to be the worst way in which it could possibly be inflicted, for it was sending back the slave to the master who was under feelings of irritation, and the master was made the executioner of the sentence; nay, more, he was made the very judge himself, as well as executioner, for it was left to him to say how many lashes, with a maximum of twenty-five, should be inflicted, and with what severity they should be inflicted. This order in council, of which he hoped he should not be deemed to speak with disrespect because he mentioned its defects, for its defects were nothing compared with the good qualities which it possessed, and which if rigorously and effectually carried into execution would be most salutary in putting down some of the very worst abuses, and rectifying some of the most glaring—this order in council was recommended to Demerara. In the court of Policy, it was, however, adopted only partially, leaving out some of its most important provisions, but approving that respecting slave-evidence. Among those omitted was a most salutary provision of the Trinidad order—wholesome and important in itself, but more important in its consequences, by the sanction it gave to an important principle—he meant the provision as to compulsory manumission. This and several other important provisions were entirely omitted in the Demerara order. Besides these two colonies, there were five others under legislative power, in not one of which had any thing been hitherto done. He understood that orders had been sent out, and that a correspondence had taken place, but that, up to this moment, there was hot, in one of those five other colonies, any order in council, or ordinance—call it what you will—for the better treatment of slaves. He was not urging this as any charge against his majesty's government. There were, besides these, the thirteen colonies having legislatures of their own; to the legislative history of which he wished to call the attention of the House. When the right hon. Secretary opposite, at an early period of the session, made a statement to the House with respect to what had been done, or was begun to be done, or was in contemplation, or hoped to be done, he took leave to ask the right hon. gentleman certain questions with respect to the amount of the real substantial improvements, under several different heads; and it appeared from his answers, that little or nothing had been done. With respect to five or six of those colonies nothing, absolutely nothing, had been done. But he should like to go into an examination of the documents, and see what was the veal state of the case. On four of the returns from colonies possessing legislatures, acting and speaking for themselves, nothing had been done towards carrying into effect the desire of government and of that House. He should begin at once by stating, that there were six in which there was not a shadow of pretext for that omission. These were Antigua, Bermuda, Montserrat, Nevis, St. Kitt's, and another of the Virgin Islands, comprising a slave-population amounting to 80,000—in not one of which had a successful step been taken to give effect to the desires of government. There could not be found a page—not a line—not a word, in the whole of that voluminous correspondence, laid before the House for the last four years up to the preceding day, to prove that the slightest effort had been made in conformity with the wishes of government and of parliament. There was a despatch from the governor of St. Kitt's, to be found in page 69 of the last set of papers laid upon the table of the House, in which governor Maxwell, in a letter to lord Bathurst, says, "I take leave to acquaint your lordship, that the important subject of the law for the amelioration of the slave-population was referred to a committee, formed from both branches of the legislature, and it is with considerable regret that I have to inform your lordship, that little or no progress has been made in fulfilling his majesty's gracious intention." In Nevis the same measure had been adopted, and attended with the same delay. The legislature of the Virgin Islands had not as yet entered upon the consideration of this important subject. So that it was apparent by this, that nothing had been adopted, and that even the propriety of doing something had not been thought of. In Jamaica, which contained the greatest slave-population, and which also contained within itself the greatest white population of any of the West-India islands; and that white population, the most enlightened and most intelligent of the whole West Indies—they, from these circumstances, it would be supposed, could not have with more case and readiness complied with the suggestions of government; but, looking at the return which had been made, he was obliged to say they had done nothing. Of the nine columns or heads in the return, only three of those heads had been carried into effect; namely, the religious instruction of the slaves, the observance of the Sabbath, and the preventing of levies on slaves on the Saturday. Now, the most important points which had been suggested to them, amongst which was the admissibility of slave evidence, and the marriage of the slaves, had been altogether neglected. An act had been passed to hinder the arrest of slaves on the Sunday, similar to that which protected them on the Saturday. Under the head of "Manumission," it was enacted that where there was a tenant for life, or having any equitable interest in any slave whom he wished to manumit, the value of such slave should be appraised by persons appointed, and the money be put to the credit of the person who had an interest in the estate. This being done, the slave obtained his freedom. Then came the enactment as to protecting the slave in his right of property, in the receiving of bequests, or other personal estate. The Act ran thus—"That any pecuniary bequests or legacy of a chattel to a slave, shall be deemed and considered to be a valid and legal bequest or legacy, and the executor or representative of the testator, shall be authorized to pay the amount of such legacy, or to deliver up such chattel to such slaves." Now, he would call the attention of the House to the last provision of this beneficial enactment, which was to this effect:—"Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be deemed to authorize the institution of any action or suit at law, or in equity, for the recovery of such legacy; or to make it necessary to make any slave or slaves a defendant or defendants to a suit in equity." So that this Act which gave the slave a right to property, did away with its protection by withholding from him his right of action to recover such property. To be sure, this restriction would have the effect of keeping the slave out of the court of Chancery; and so far it might be deemed a benefit [a laugh]. This restriction withheld from the executor or personal representative of a slave, his right of action to obtain such legacy or other property so bequeathed. Such were the benefits that this enactment conferred on the slave. With respect to that bill, the duke of Manchester, in a letter to earl Bathurst, designates it as "a Bill of very trifling importance." In the same letter, he says, "a bill has also been passed for giving full effect to the new Episcopal Establishment, and I have reason to think, that in all its parts it is satisfactory to the bishop." No doubt it gave great satisfaction to the right rev. prelate at the head of the Jamaica Church Establishment, and he seemed so satisfied that he could not find terms sufficiently strong to express that satisfaction. The hon. and learned member was here about to read an extract from the bishop's letter, when he experienced some interruption which caused him to say, that he was sorry he should have to trouble the House with so much reading, but he should inform them, that about nine tenths of what he had to say would be composed of reading, so that if gentlemen did not wish to attend to him, it would be better they should absent themselves.—The hon. and learned gentleman then read the following passage from a letter of the bishop of Jamaica, addressed to earl Bathurst:—"I have the highest satisfaction in being able to assure your lordship, that the same good feeling, which I had the pleasure to communicate to you on a former occasion, with regard to Kingston, continues to animate every part of the Island I have hitherto visited. Mr. Archdeacon Pope and myself have just completed a progress through all the parishes except two. The general result of our observations has been, a hearty desire on the part of the proprietors, or their representatives, cheerfully to promote, as far as their limited means will allow, any measures which I have thought it my duty to suggest." What will the House think? For the benefit of the slaves? No. The right reverend prelate says, for "the benefit of the Church." "Public meetings have been called in many parishes, and private subscriptions are entered into, to promote the same desirable object." The bishop was satisfied with the state of the island, because he found the people ready to build the church; and he expressed his opinion, that nothing could be done for the slaves till churches were built—till they were filled with congregations—and till the words of religion had operated on their minds. The bishop would not have schools till the slaves had been taught religion. In this he begged leave to differ from the right reverend prelate. The right reverend prelate thought that the slaves should have nothing but oral instruction; what would he think of teaching them to read? The bishop thought the churches should be first built, and then the schools; but he (Mr. B.) thought it would be better to begin with the schools; or both schools and churches might begin at once. The legislative body of Jamaica had certainly done nothing, on the two occasions that the resolutions of the House of Commons were laid before them for their adoption. The first bill grounded on those resolutions was introduced into that assembly by a person who possessed great purity of mind, combined with considerable talent. It was introduced in the year 1824. Its principal object was the admission of slave-evidence under certain restrictions, so as to render it harmless. This bill was, however, rejected by the unanimous voice of the House. And here he should say, that nothing could exceed the degree of vehemence and vituperation which was displayed on a certain occasion, when he (Mr. B.) mentioned to the House the fact of that bill's rejection, and that by the whole House of Assembly. It was not believed that it had been thus thrown out, only one person supporting it. His statement was looked upon as a misrepresentation, and he was told that he was lending himself to the stories of persons who deceived him. Now, if he erred upon that occasion, if he had misrepresented the fact, he had the consolation of erring and misrepresenting in good company. For lord Bathurst says in one of his despatches, that the only measure which was introduced into the House of Assembly in 1824, for the amelioration of the condition of the slaves was a bill to make slave evidence admissible, and it was not singular that that bill was rejected, it having only one individual to support it, namely, the mover of the bill. The consideration of that bill was resumed before a committee of the House of Assembly, in 1825. It began its labours in the September of that year, and having sat upon it some time, it was again brought before the House of Assembly for consideration, and the measure was again lost, by a majority of two to one. Now, what was the measure thus rejected? It enacted that, first, before a slave was admitted to give evidence, he should obtain a certificate, in the hand-writing of the person under whose care he had been. This certificate was to be, in effect, a three years' testimonial of his good conduct. The slave was also required to produce his certificate of baptism, signed by the established minister or rector, who was also to certify to his being a sensible person, and of his having a correct notion of the nature of an oath. Now by this bill, all this, it would be observed, was to be certified by the established minister, and not by the Catholic, the Methodist, or other Sectarian, minister, as the former act would have allowed. If this bill had been carried, it would not have effected the least good; and that for a reason which consoled him for its rejection. In order that the slave's evidence might be admitted, he must have a good character from his master, or from his overseer; so that the person whom he considered to be his enemy, from the ill-treatment he received from him, was the very person who was selected to give him that good character which would render him ultimately a competent witness against that said master or overseer, against whom he might have good grounds of complaint. That measure having such a provision in it, which so attenuated, frustrated, and nullified, all benefit it was intended to bestow, was rejected. The account given by the duke of Manchester, with respect to the rejection of that bill, was important. The duke, in a letter to lord Bathurst, says, "and although this bill was confined in its operation to the cases of murder, treason, and mayhem, and guarded by provisions, which, in the opinion of the most intelligent portion of the community, and of those who possess the largest stake in the country, rendered it perfectly harmless, the clamour out of doors was so great, and the resolutions entered into at parochial meetings so strongly expressed the public feeling, that many members whose sentiments were favourable to the measure yielded to the opinion of their constituents, and voted against the bill, and it was finally lost on a division of 24 to 13." And here he would say that he really felt for the members of this assembly. He personally knew some of them, and the names of many of them must be familiar to the members of that House; and those who knew any thing of them must be aware, that that assembly possessed many good men, who were both endowed with talents and learning How pitiable, therefore, was their situation—to be placed in the House of assembly of a country—to be there bereft of the power of doing that which their own better feelings would induce them to achieve. They were obliged to yield to the public opinion, and compelled to give in to the local prejudices. Proceeding with the extracts from various documents which he read to the House, the hon. and learned gentleman adverted to certain resolutions passed at one of the vestry meetings held in the island of Jamaica, which went to express the opinion of the meeting, that it would be highly advantageous to the interests of the colony to banish from thence, as far as that object could possibly be accomplished, the principles and influence of sectarianism; and that instead of their being further indulged, restrictive and penitential measures should be resorted to. This line of conduct, however, was not pursued until it was found that the negroes on their part seemed inclined to pay attention to sectarian doctrines. How was the fact, then? Instead of milder measures being adopted, stronger ones were enforced, and the population of Jamaica were to repent of errors brought on by others, before any restrictions had become necessary. This was all to be attributed to that zeal for the established religion, which would exclude all other doctrine but that of Protestantism. When the present bishop of Jamaica arrived there, addresses were presented to him from the different islands under his authority. In those addresses he was extolled and praised to the very skies, and the most flattering protestations were made to support the Church Establishment. The promoters of those addresses were hostile to the amelioration of the condition of the slaves; and the great end of those addresses was to discourage sectarian and methodistical prin- ciples from gaining ground. Now it was not his opinion, but it was the opinion of ail those who knew the slaves best, that if it was a desirable object that the slaves should be enlightened by religious education, that end was to be best attained by encouraging, and not by opposing, Methodists and sectarians. It was an indisputable fact, that already the greatest benefits had been conferred upon the slaves of all those islands through the labours of the Methodists.

Next to Jamaica, which had done nothing or next to nothing, came Barbadoes which contained a slave-population of 79,000, or nearer 80,000. To the return made from that island a supplement had been tacked, to show that a great deal had been done. It stated, that "an act had been passed by the legislature of Barbadoes in December, 1825, in which were many wise and salutary provisions." He did not mean to say, that this return was in favour of the slaves; he only meant to show that Barbadoes had done nothing, or worse than nothing; for he wished that nothing had been done by the local legislature of that island with regard to making laws for the slaves. This last, as he before stated, was passed in the year 1825. Under the head of manumission in the act referred to be found this clause—"That if any slave shall discover and give information of any evil designs or plots of any other slave or slaves, whereby insurrection or rebellion may be discovered, that such slave or slaves who give such information as aforesaid, shall on full conviction of the accused as aforesaid, be declared free, and shall accordingly be from thenceforth free, and be allowed 10l. as a pension; and if he choose to continue to remain with his master, such slave shall in that case annually and every year be paid the sum of 25l. current money from the public treasury." So that the slave would not only receive his manumission, but a pension also. But this clause was not of such recent origin as might be imagined. In January, 1688, he found that there was this self-same proviso, with this special difference, however—that the slave, although entitled to his freedom, was not to receive any pension. He was merely to get 40s. and his liberty. He found another clause in that act to this effect:—"That every slave, in case of rebellion, who shall behave well and courageously in battle, and who shall kill one or more enemies, it shall and may be lawful to de- dare such slave free." But this proviso however, just and proper, was by no means anew one; for on looking to the year 1707, it would be found that a similar law was passed by the legislature of Barbadoes; but there was one material alteration, and it wad curious to observe the difference of temper which characterized the present government and that of the year 1807. How stood the law in that year? In case of a slave behaving himself courageously in battle, he should then have his freedom, ipso facto; so that after the lapse of a century and a quarter, the addition of a pension was held out to him as a further stimulus to his valour, and in order to encourage him to behave so as to kill or destroy, not only an enemy,—he begged the House to mark while he read the passage from the act,—"in order to kill or destroy one or more of the enemy or rebels." So that an encouragement was held out not only for invasion, but for rebellion also. He did not mean to go through the other clauses and provisoes of this particular act; but if any gentleman would look it over, he would find that almost all its provisoes were in acts passed so far back as the year 1707 and 1767, and one even so far back as the year 1609. Independently of the change which he had already pointed out with reference to this act and that of the year 1707, there were other most important changes made in the law, relating to the quarrelling of slaves, and their use of insolent language to white persons. This which he would now read was new. "If any slave shall be guilty of quarrelling, threatening, or fighting with one another, or of insolent language, drunkenness, indecency, or cock-fighting,"—he wished to state that the extracts which he: was reading were copied from the old act—"or of riding or driving in a faster gait than a gentle trot, on any road of this island, or of cruelly beating or ill-using any horse, mare, gelding, mule, ass, or' other cattle, or of any other disorderly conduct or misbehaviour." Now, all this was passed on the 9th of August 1749, and he begged hon. gentlemen just to compare the clause which he had read with the 27th clause of the new act; when it would be found, that the most trifling of all offences were subject to a punishment of thirty-nine stripes, to be given at the discretion of one judge, whereas the old act required the concurrence of two judges. But there was still another most important alteration. The old act said, "or of using insolent language or gestures to any white person;" while the words of the new act ran thus—"to or of any white person." Some gentlemen who knew nothing of law, might think that this little word "of" was of no consequence, and by no means material whether inserted or omitted; but, trifling as the word might seem in its present place, in this act it might lead to the severe punishment of thirty-nine lashes, to be awarded by a single judge; but in case of a pregnant woman, the sentence was to be commuted to imprisonment. There was another part of that 27th clause which was of too general a nature, and was therefore liable to abuse. It was this—"or guilty of any disorderly conduct or misbehaviour." Now, he contended, that there was nothing more vague or unsatisfactory than this mode of legislating; for it was almost impossible to define what species of irregularity would come within the meaning of those words; and the clause, as it was at present constructed, was made dangerous, arbitrary, and overbearing, by the omission of the important words contained in the clause of 1749: those words gave a very different meaning to the clause—"any conduct or misbehaviour whereby the public were disturbed, or any particular person aggrieved." Compare the words of the two clauses together, and what a different inference would be drawn from each. One clause gave a definitive sentence, to be followed by a severe punishment inflicted at the discretion of only one judge; while the other left the sentence to the mercy of the accuser, and the two judges, whose joint concurrence was essential as to the extent of the punishment which should follow. There was a clause with respect to the killing of slaves, that made it only liable to an action at law f a slave were killed by accident; and in the same clause it provided, that "if any slave, guilty of robbery, shall hereafter be killed whilst committing or attempting to commit a robbery, or in the attempt to murder a white person, &c.;"—so that if a slave be killed—no matter how, or by whom—the murderer had only to make it clear that he committed the act in defence of his property, in order to excuse him in the eye of the law. In this way, an insolent look or expression might be construed into crime, and the extreme punishment might follow. The act said, you may with im- punity kill any slave who docs so and so to you. But then, on the other hand, it might be said, that if any white or free person shall maim, mutilate, or dismember any slave, he shall be punished accordingly. It was only within the last two or three years, that the killing of a slave was counted felony. Now it was murder, as the wilful death of a fellow-being was in our own laws. But, to what did this clause protecting the slaves amount to? "If you maim, mutilate, or dismember any slave," that was to say, if you cut his leg, or gave him some bodily wound not affecting his life, you might be prosecuted, and punished by fine; and a person guilty of maiming or mutilating a slave might be punished in the same way as a slave would be punished for trotting his master's horse too fast. The act then proceeded—"That if any person or persons shall hereafter commit any act or acts of cruelty towards a slave, or shall wantonly, maliciously, and cruelly, whip, beat, or bruise, any slave or slaves." Lot the House attend to this clause; for this wanton, cruel, and malicious whipping, beating, and bruising—bruising which might extend to any injury of the unfortunate slave, short of actual mutilation—which might maim him and render him wretched for life; for such bruising, this act decreed a penalty of 25l. currency, which was somewhere about 18l. or 20l. sterling. After this part, which was avowedly for the protection of the slave, he would call the attention of the House to a clause which had for its object the greater security of the masters. The clause stated, "That if any slave or slaves shall hear any other slave or slaves speaking any words tending to mutiny, insurrection, or rebellion, &c, and shall not immediately disclose or discover the same to his, her, or their master or owner, or to some justice, &c." Now, before he mentioned the punishment decreed against this act of omission on the part of the slave, he would ask how that slave was to make up his mind, as to subject on which he was called upon to make the disclosure? For, be it observed, he was not required to decide as to what was or was not mutiny or sedition, but upon the incomparably more difficult point—what might or might not have a tendency to those crimes. He was required by this act to weigh the subject seriously, and after maturely deliberating in his mind on the nature of the words spoken, he was expected to come to the same conclusion to which a jury of twelve men on their oaths, having heard evidence and the charge of a judge, might come, as to the tendency of these words; and if he should not arrive at this conclusion—and on that would depend the crime of concealing them—what was the punishment? Was it the payment of 25l. currency, as in the case of "malicious and wanton bruising," just noticed? No such thing—but he was to be condemned to suffer the penalty of death. Why, the deciding as to what had or had not a tendency to mutiny and insurrection was a subject full of doubt and difficulty, even to some of the ablest lawyers of the present day, and there existed no little difference of opinion respecting it, and yet the poor, illiterate and half-civilized slave was expected, under a penalty of death, to come to a just conclusion on this most difficult case! There were a great number of other clauses in this act which he would not detail, but they were quite in the same spirit as those he had read to the House. Yet did the colonist think that this act, by a happy union of every thing which could protect the slave and secure the master, would be rendered dear to posterity! The legislature of Barbadoes congratulated themselves on having finished this great work, which was to consolidate and amend all the laws relating to slaves. Now, if he were to say that he was disappointed at this piece of legislation on the part of the Barbadoes assembly—if he were to say that he would rather it had not passed, and that it had made things worse instead of better, it would be considered only as the opinion of one individual; but then, such as it was, it was also the opinion of the governor of the island. That officer, in his despatch to lord Bathurst in November, 1825, enclosing copies of the addresses presented to him on the 15th of that month by the counsel and House of Assembly, said, "It would have afforded me real satisfaction had I been enabled to draw your lordship's attention to any part of the address of the House of Assembly calculated to encourage your lordship to expect, that that body would proceed without delay to adopt, as far as possible, those measures which have been suggested by his majesty's government." This was the opinion of the governor many months after the act from which he had quoted had passed. The council in the address (enclosed in the despatch of November 25) to the governor, after deploring the unfortunate delay which had taken place in passing an efficient slave amelioration bill, added, that, "after the most deliberate and impartial consideration of the measures recommended by his majesty's government for ameliorating the condition of the slave, we feel convinced that some of those regulations are not calculated to promote the happiness or moral advancement of the slave any more than the interest of the master." The address of the House of Assembly, delivered on the same occasion, spoke of the tone of "censure and menace" which pervaded "a portion of the despatch of the noble Secretary for the Colonies, and which form so prominent and so important a part of your honour's speech,"—censure and menace aimed, as it appears, at the House of Assembly; as if the House of Assembly could pass any act, or had passed the act to which his lordship alludes, without the concurrence and assent of the other branches of the legislature. Then, after alluding to the "unreasonable concessions" which were expected from them in favour of the slaves, they added, "If, however, such expectations are, unfortunately for us, entertained by those under whose control we are placed—if nothing less than an implicit conformity with orders in council, the ruinous effects of which are published almost daily in the gazettes of a neighbouring colony—if, in short, a plan has been already organized for our destruction—if it is determined that we shall be the victims of fanaticism, prejudice, and injustice, we must submit; but neither threats nor persuasion will ever induce us to put the finishing hand to our own political, perhaps natural, existence; and we have too much reliance on the justice of our belovedssovereign, to believe that he ever will." What, he would ask, was this, but saying, in other words, that beyond what they had passed in the act from which he had quoted, no further concessions should ever be extorted from them by threat or menace?

He next came to the Bahamas, and there he found that nothing had been done that could be called an approach to an amelioration of the condition of the slaves. The first proceeding to which he would call the attention of the House was that for promoting the religious instruction of the slaves. He knew it was tiresome to the House to have its attention called thus at length to the proceeding of the colonial legislatures clause by clause. He could assure them he did not do so either from pleasure or amusement, for the subject was the driest that could well be imagined; but he felt it necessary to examine in detail what had been done by the colonies, in order to come to a proper conclusion as to what it was probable they might do still further towards carrying the resolutions of that House in 1823 into effect. They had now had nearly four years trial, and in that time, as some hon. gentlemen contended, much had been done, while others maintained, that nothing whatever had been accomplished by the colonies in the spirit of the resolutions of 1823. On this point the parties were at issue. The only way left, then, was to examine in detail, what they had or were said to have done, and to judge from that of their disposition to go on further. If, however, any of the gentlemen connected with the West Indies would give up this point, and admit that nothing had yet been done, he would not trouble the House further on that point; but, if not, he must proceed in the tedious, but the only way left to him to come at the facts. To return to the act of the Bahamas' legislature. This act was passed on the 28th of January, 1824, and the clause respecting the religious instruction of the slaves, to which he wished to call the attention of the House, was to this effect—"And be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all masters or owners, or, in their absence, their overseers, shall, as much as in them lies, endeavour to instruct their slaves in the Christian religion, and shall do their endeavour to fit them for baptism, and as soon as conveniently may be, shall cause to be baptised all such slaves as they can make sensible of a Deity and of the Christian faith." This clause was, no doubt, one of the many recent steps which had been taken by the colonists since 1823; but the fact was, that it was a verbatim copy of a clause inserted in an act passed in the same colony in 1796. That act set out with a preamble, stating the necessity of consolidating the slave laws, and of taking measures for improving the moral and religious condition of the slaves: but what said the preamble of the act of 1824? Did it not say "whereas it is necessary to follow up the resolutions of the British parliament of May, 1823, for improving the moral and religious condition of slaves?" No such thing. It set out by saying, "Whereas it is expedient, that the laws which, from time to time, have been enacted for the government of slaves should be amended, consolidated, and brought into one act, and other provisions made for their protection, and the promoting of their moral and religious instruction, and by means thereof, their general comfort and happiness, so far as is consistent with due order and subordination, and the well-being of this colony." Now, he would ask, was this treating the British House of Commons fairly? They had, in 1823, come to a resolution, that it was necessary that immediate steps should be taken for improving the condition of the slaves. It was then contended, that steps had been taken by some of the colonists in furtherance of that resolution, and as an instance, this clause was cited, which, on examination, turned out to be nothing more than a verbatim copy of a clause contained in the act of 1796, and without even the preamble which headed that act! This, he would contend, was actually doing nothing, or at all events it was not sufficient to support the argument of those who maintained, that something new had been done by this colony.

He would next call the attention of the House to the 5th clause of this act of 1824. That clause stated, "and be it further enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that all and every act and acts, clause and clauses thereof, whereby any tax or duty whatever is or hath been imposed on the manumission of any slave or slaves within these islands, shall be, and the same hereby are (so far as relates to the imposition of any such tax or duty), suspended for and during the continuance of this act, provided always that nothing herein contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to prevent the public secretary, or register of records of the colony, or any of his lawful deputy or deputies, from asking, demanding, and receiving from the person or persons liable to pay the same, any his lawful fee or fees for the recording of any manumission or manumissions, or otherwise giving legal effect thereunto." Now, to show how far this ought to be taken as doing something towards ameliorating the condition of the slave, he would inform the House, that by a return from this colony in 1822, and signed by Mr. Nesbit, the secretary to the governor, just two years before the passing of the act of 1824, there was under the head of "Taxes on manumission of slaves," this statement "No tax of any king is charged in this colony on the manumission of a slave;" and yet this was one of the clauses adduced to show that something had been done in compliance with the resolutions of the House in 1823! There was another clause in the act which related to the infliction of punishment of slaves, but it was precisely the same as that contained in the act of 1796, with the addition of this sentence—"That female slaves over twelve years old, should not be publicly whipped under a penalty of 10l." In the last papers presented to the House from the colonies, there were several regulations as to various kinds of punishment, the infliction of torture, &c, but without any exception they were verbatim copies of clauses in the act of 1796; the only difference being, that in the two acts, they stood under different sections.

In Tobago, it appeared, that Sunday markets had been abolished, but this was the only island in which such a regulation had been carried into effect. In some of the other islands, regulations had been made, by which the markets were not allowed to continue after ten in the morning of Sundays, but Tobago was the only place in which the Sunday market was wholly abolished. But see in what situation this abolition placed the slave. It absolutely made his condition worse, unless some addition were made to the number of holidays. It was well known that the slave employed a great portion of the Sunday in the cultivation of his own ground. Now that the Sunday market was abolished, inducements were held out to the slaves to discontinue all kind of work on the Sunday; and for that purpose, eighteen days were given to him as holidays, being an addition often to the number he had before enjoyed. But this left his condition worse; for hitherto he had fifty-two Sundays, and the eight holidays in which to cultivate his own property; so that by the new regulation he would lose forty-two days. He would therefore contend, that the change could not be considered beneficial to the slave, unless a much larger addition were made to the number of his holidays.

It was said, that an improvement had been made in this island with respect to the admission of slave-evidence. This was admitted by the legislature of the island, but under the following restriction —that in case of murder, or maiming of a slave, there being no white person, not concerned in the act, present, the evidence of two slaves of good repute might be admitted against the accused party; but this went but a very little way towards improvement. But, to show the spirit and temper of the island, and that as late as October 1825, he would read an extract from an address from the legislative council to the governor at that period. After stating what they would agree to, they added—"They have now stated their readiness to carry into effect many of the measures proposed by his majesty's government, to some of which they yield, rather from a sincere desire to conciliate public opinion and trans-Atlantic prejudices, than from any conviction that the proposed alterations can in any way be beneficial to the slaves, or claimed as due to the rights of humanity. But in so doing, they beg leave respectfully, but firmly, to declare, that concession will then have reached its utmost; and a deep sense of their public duty bids them implore his majesty's government to consider and reflect on the earnest appeal now made to their wisdom, discretion, and justice, by this the legislative council of Tobago, against any further alterations, or proposals of alteration, which a mistaken zeal in the cause of humanity may still consider requisite to be effected in our slave-laws, without due deliberation on the rights of property, which such interference must destroy." Towards its close, the address added, "They have in the preceding pages detailed to your excellency the length they are willing to go on the supposed work of amelioration. But they must also declare that they have therein stated their ultimatum. No consideration will induce them to advance one step further in sacrificing those political rights which they acquired when, under the royal authority, power was given them to judge of, and make all laws necessary for themselves; no consideration whatever will induce them further than they have stated, to fritter away and tamper with those rights of property which they conceive rest on no less solid a foundation than the pledged faith of Great Britain, which, as they know it is yet untarnished, they are confident will not first be sullied in their instance; that further interference would effectually destroy those rights of property, the council of Tobago humbly conceive themselves better able to judge of, than any speculators who judge of their effects at a distance." The legislative council thus did all that they could do, and rejected nearly the whole of the orders in council of Trinidad, save those points he had already noticed.

He would next come to the islands of St. Vincent's, Dominica, and Grenada, where it was said that most was done; and he would show that, in effect, nothing had been done towards an effectual amelioration of the condition of the slave. He would proceed, first, to the charges made with respect to the admission of slave-evidence—to the regulations respecting the punishment of slaves, and to those which affected the rights of slave-property. First, as to St. Vincent's; and as to that clause in the act passed there, which it was said would carry most fully into effect the Trinidad order in council respecting the admission of slave-evidence. But, before he went to that, he would read to the House an extract from the address of the Speaker of the House of Assembly, in October, 1825, to the governor. In it the Speaker said,—"I am now, however, happy to inform your excellency, that a bill has been read a second time, and yesterday passed its commitment, with an order for a third reading in December, in which the House hopes it has embodied the substance of all or nearly all that is important in the Trinidad order." Then, after enumerating several of the enactments in the bill, the Speaker added, "And, finally, slave-evidence is made admissible in all criminal matters on the basis of the Trinidad order in council; thus evincing, on the part of the House of Assembly, a similar desire to go to the utmost limits, nay, almost beyond the limits of what it deems safe and practicable, to meet the wishes of those persons in England who have the true interests of the colonies in view." Now, he would contend, that not only was not the substance of the Trinidad order embodied in this act, but that there was nothing at all of its spirit (as far, at least, as the admission of slave-evidence went) contained in it. There were six essential differences between the admission of slave-evidence enjoined by the Trinidad order, and that allowed by the St. Vincent's act. The first was, that by this act, slaves were admitted to give evidence only in cases of murder, or mayhem, or felonies, punishable with death or trans- portation; the second was, that the slaves were not allowed to be examined until they produced a certificate from a clergyman, stating their knowledge of a Deity, and their acquaintance with the Christian doctrine; the third was, that a certificate was also necessary from the proprietor or, in his absence, from the master or overseer; a regulation which, he contended, went to destroy the advantage of the whole clause, for it gave to the proprietor or master the power of defeating the ends of justice when the case was against any of his friends, which he could do by withholding his certificate. The fourth point of difference was, that the slave was to be first examined by the court as to his proficiency in the knowledge of the Christian doctrine. The fifth difference was, that two slaves should be examined apart, and to make the testimony of either admissible, it was necessary that they should be both altogether consistent in their account. The sixth and last, and most important difference of all, and one which rendered the whole clause entirely futile, and a total denial of justice in those cases where the slave was most likely to be injured, and in which he, of course, stood most in need of protection, was, that in no case was the evidence of a slave to be received, where his or her owner, master, employer, or overseer was affected. Now, would any man tell him, after those differences, that the Trinidad order was in substance contained in the St. Vincent's act? Was this a proof that in that act the legislative council had gone to the very verge of, and beyond, the order, to the end that they might conciliate the people of this country? Would it be said that evidence was admitted, when it was thus seen that it was excluded in those cases where most of all justice required that it should be allowed? It was stated in one of the papers on the table of the House, that no driver, being a slave, should use, as an emblem or badge of authority, a common cart-whip, but no mention was made that such instrument of punishment should not be used by a free negro, or a white man, who might be employed as drivers. This applied particularly to Grenada; but in the Dominica act was a clause to this effect:—"Be it, and it is hereby enacted and ordained, by the authority aforesaid, that for the maintenance of discipline on plantations and elsewhere, a cat, such as is used in the British army, and no other instrument, shall be employed for such punishments as may be lawfully inflicted, and that the whip, commonly called the cart-whip, shall never hereafter be employed either as an instrument of punishment, or an emblem of authority." Yet not a word was here said about the use of this instrument by the drivers of slaves as a stimulant to labour.

He would now come to what this same act said about the admission of slave-evidence. The clause stated, "Be it therefore enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in all cases, not being capital nor of charges against their owners, it shall hereafter be lawful for all courts and magistrates to admit the evidence of slaves having been duly baptized, and appearing to the said courts or magistrates, after having been minutely interrogated on the subject thoroughly, to comprehend the true nature and meaning of an oath; provided always, that in every instance two such slaves at least being duly examined apart, and out of the hearing of each other, shall distinctly depose to the very same facts, without in the least degree contradicting each other's evidence. And provided also, that no one shall be convicted of any offence on the evidence of slaves, unless such offence shall be prosecuted and brought to trial within—months after the commission thereof." By this the House would see, that the clause was rendered futile, by the omission of that which would afford the slave protection against those against whom he most required it; namely, his owners and masters. Why, it was to meet such an evil that the admission of slave-evidence had been directed by the Trinidad order in council; but of tin's important benefit the Dominica act had entirely deprived the slave. There were, in fact, no instances in which the spirit of the order in council had been embodied in the acts of the colonial legislatures.

If he did not go into further detail with respect to all the other parts of his case, it was not because he could not substantiate them completely. That he could do, if it were necessary; and he begged it to be understood, that he would do so if the correctness of his general statement was called in question. He trusted, however, that he had stated enough to satisfy the House of the necessity of coming to some resolution on the subject. To rest satisfied with merely sending back to the colonial legislatures the provisions of the order in council, without making their adoption compulsory, would be only sowing the seeds of future disappointment. He had therefore felt it his duty to give the House an opportunity, by their vote, of letting it be known—to the government, who he thought did not want any warning, but might require their own hands to be strengthened—to the country, which took a deep and universal interest in the question—but, above all, of letting it be known to the West-India legislatures, who had disregarded, and would persist in disregarding, the wishes of parliament, until parliament roused itself and proved that it was no longer to be trifled with—that the time was at length arrived when, if they did not do their duty, parliament was determined to do that which devolved upon them. By adopting the resolution which he intended to submit, the House would only be doing that which lord Bathurst had stated in his despatches that he expected them to do. Lord Bathurst informed the colonists, that if they did not show a willingness to adopt the regulations contained in the order in council, it was not likely that the present session of parliament would be allowed to pass over without some measures being taken on the subject. This threat, so to call it—or warning, if that word sounded better—had been laid before the colonial legislatures, and yet they had done nothing, or worse than nothing. That being the case, should the present session of parliament be allowed to pass over and no resolution be adopted, the colonists would say that lord Bathurst had attempted to frighten them with empty threats, mere sounds signifying nothing. Such conduct would hold out to the colonial legislatures an additional inducement to do nothing for the amelioration of the slave-population. If, however, the House should now come to a unanimous resolution, consistently with their resolutions of 1823, he had no doubt it would cause the colonial legislatures to adopt a different line of conduct from that which they had hitherto pursued; and if not, parliament would next session have a right, on every ground of fairness and even forbearance, to take into their own hands the work which he was firmly persuaded never would be accomplished but by parliament itself. The resolution which he proposed to submit to the House was framed in the following terms:—"That this House has observed with deep regret, that nothing effectual has been done by the legislatures of his majesty's colonies in the West Indies, in compliance with the declared wishes of his majesty's government, and the Resolutions of this House of the 15th of May, 1823, touching the condition of the slaves; and this House will, therefore, early in the next session of parliament, take into its most serious consideration, such measures as may appear to be necessary for giving effect to the said resolution." He had proposed to defer the adoption of any specific measures to next session, only because the present session was too far advanced to permit of any thing being done on the subject. The hon. and learned member concluded with moving the resolution.

Mr. Wilmot Horton

rose and said:—Mr. Speaker; after the very long details into which the hon. and learned gentleman has felt it necessary in the discharge of his public duty to enter, I feel satisfied that the House will indulge me in a patient hearing of those statements which my duty equally requires me to make, not, perhaps, in general contradiction to the hon. and learned gentleman, with respect to some of the details to which he has at such length adverted, but for the purpose of placing the subject in a very different point of view from that in which it has been exhibited by the hon. gentleman.

The hon. and learned gentleman has proposed to the House a Resolution, "That this House has observed, with deep regret, that nothing effectual has been done by the legislatures of his majesty's colonies in the West Indies, in compliance with the declared wishes of his majesty's government, and the Resolutions of this House of the 15th of May, 1823, touching the condition of the slaves; and that this House will, therefore, early in the next session of parliament, take into their most serious consideration such measures as may appear to be necessary for giving effect to the said Resolutions." Now, Sir, I would beg to observe, if the House had not been already fully informed of the course which his majesty's government intended to take—if the government were not already pledged to pursue a particular line of conduct—and if it were not already inevitably necessary that the subject to which the resolution just proposed refers, should occupy the attention of the House—then, indeed, there might be some necessity for the present motion; but as it is matter of notoriety, that preparations have been made for determining the attention of the colonial legislatures to each separate point of the Trinidad order in council, by the introduction of bills prepared in each colony, with such modifications as the peculiar circumstances of such colony, and its previous state of legislation, rendered necessary—no real grounds can be shewn for calling on the House for any pledge as to the future, of the nature of that required by the hon. and learned gentleman. I trust, therefore, that the House will be disposed to consider, with me, that resolution as entirely superfluous and unnecessary, and will be prepared to reject it accordingly. That resolution, in fact, can only be considered as an indirect and covert censure on his majesty's government—as a declaration that all which the government has hitherto done has been idle and frivolous, and tampering with the wishes and purposes of the country.

The hon. and learned gentleman seemed to insinuate, that some members of his majesty's government had stated generally, that the colonial legislatures had already fulfilled the provisions of the Trinidad order in council. That is not the case. The interference of parliament was claimed by the hon. and learned gentleman and his friends, on the ground of the contumacy and resistance which had been exhibited by the colonial assemblies; and all that was contended by his majesty's government was, that such a degree of contumacy and resistance had in no instance been shewn, as rendered it imperatively necessary for parliament to interfere. I entirely concur in that opinion. I would appeal to the House and to the country, whether other motives, beyond those of obstinacy and resistance, might not be discovered, for the conduct of the colonial legislatures? I would ask whether any man can avoid remarking that they have been retarded in their legislation by the impression that the measures which this House has recommended will be fatal to their interests as proprietors? Whether that opinion on their part be correct or not, is not now the question; but I think it will be in my power sufficiently to substantiate the opinion that I have expressed, and to show that the main source of the opposition on the part of the West-Indian proprietors, is the belief that the measures of this House tend to depreciate, if not to destroy, their property. This is the impression which has really influenced them; and nothing can be more erroneous, than to contend that they are actuated, in their present indisposition to adopt the recommendations made to them, by an abstract love of slavery, or by a disinclination to better the condition of their slaves. I do not mean to argue that in a society where slavery has long existed, a feeling of the necessity of slavery may not, in some measure, operate; but I repeat that the opposition of the proprietors has been mainly founded on the conviction, that the humane measures recommended by the government and by the House would necessarily lead to the destruction of their property. The West Indians have also been goaded in their opposition to the measures recommended by the government, by the nature and tenor of many of those meetings from which petitions have emanated, which have been so prodigally presented to this House.

The resolutions of parliament prescribed a course in which temperance and moderation were conspicuous; but the tone of many of the speeches on these occasions was not in keeping with the sentiments which, under the pledge of those resolutions, must characterise the speeches of members in this House: in some of those public meetings, expressions have been employed of the most irritating and offensive nature, and which, in their tone and tendency, threaten ruin and destruction to the West-Indian interests. Under these circumstances, many West Indians have been tempted to identify the violence of certain parties with the measures of the government, consequent upon the resolutions of this House. Nothing can be more unfair than such identification, or more likely to be prejudicial to those interests, which they are anxious to support. At the 6ame time, I am satisfied that, in proportion as these causes cease to operate—in proportion as information becomes diffused throughout the colonies, and as the proprietors are led to entertain a just view of their own interests, and of the real tendency of those measures, some of which they contemplate with so much alarm—in the same proportion will they feel that the measures in question are not objectionable in principle or dangerous in operation. When such a feeling gains ground, it will have the effect of suggesting a line of conduct on their part which will take away those topics, I will not say of declamation, but of argument, in which the honourable and learned gentleman has indulged.

The hon. and learned gentleman has commented at some length on the Trinidad order in council; and, although he is disposed, on the whole, to allow merit to that order, yet there are some points of censure to which he has thought it necessary to call the attention of the House. He considers the order defective in its regulations with respect to evidence, and that the requiring a certificate from an accredited minister of religion, as to the qualification of a slave to take an oath, is an unnecessary and prejudicial enactment. The hon. and learned gentleman must be aware, that the order in council did not affect the existing law in Trinidad with regard to the evidence of slaves who have not such a certificate; that the principle of "quantum valeat" testimony prevailed there previously to the introduction of the order; and that, consequently, the only practical effect of the certificate is, to raise the testimony of a slave who is enabled to produce it, to a direct par with the testimony of a white witness: and I think that the House will concur with me in the opinion, that no bonus could be offered to the negro more calculated to induce him to lend a willing ear to religious instruction, than the contemplation of the important privilege to which such instruction will entitle him under the enactment in question.

The hon. gentleman appears to consider it as a defect in the Trinidad order, that it is not provided, that the "assistant proprietors (that is, all persons who are included in the machinery by which the order must be executed) should be divested of all property and interest in slaves;" but, however captivating such a proposition may be in the abstract, he must be aware how difficult it would be to reduce it to practice in a society where slaves impart the general value to property. And is it expedient, in principle, to hold out to the West-Indians, that their situation as proprietors effectually disqualifies them from ever lending themselves to the execution of any practical improvements prescribed by law? Is it not a contrary impression rather that legislation should have a tendency to engender? Should it not rather mark con- fidence than distrust? It was an essential ingredient of the Trinidad order, that the protector of slaves should not only be independent, but divested of all sort of interest in slave-property; but it could not be necessary to extend that qualification to any parties who may, on different occasions, be ministerially called upon to execute the purposes of the order.

The hon. and learned gentleman objects to the temporary continuance of Sunday markets. He is aware that their continuance was made dependent on the progressive extension of religious instruction, which would enable the slaves to turn to real profit the freedom from employment secured to them by the Sunday: and I cannot but think, that the course which has been taken has been a wise and judicious one, and that the arguments against it are much more theoretical than practical in their nature. The hon. gentleman must be well aware of the distinction between Sunday markets, and the cultivation of provision-grounds on the Sunday. In some parts of the West Indies (Barba-does, for example) the slave is fed by the master; in which case there is no necessity for the cultivation of provision-grounds. If the master choose that the slave should cultivate provisions for himself, as a system preferable to that of a supply of bought provisions, it is his duty to provide that, in the course of the six days, sufficient time be allowed to the slave for the cultivation of his provision-ground. It is, of course, his duty and his interest to take care that the slave be not overworked: consequently, that portion of time which is employed by the slave in the cultivation of provisions must be abstracted from the work performed to the master. The benefit received by the master for such abstraction is the production of that food which otherwise he would be compelled to purchase.

The hon. and learned gentleman protests against the punishment which is inflicted on slaves, under a local ordinance in Trinidad, for denouncing their masters unjustly; but, can any man, who will pause to consider the frame of society incidental to slavery, doubt that every discouragement should be provided by law against frivolous and useless complaints, producing unnecessary dissatisfaction in the mind of the slave, and, in their reaction, unnecessary severity on the part of the master?

The hon. and learned gentleman has contrasted the legislation which has taken place in Demerara with that of Trinidad. He has adverted to the resistance which has been made in Demerara to what has been called the "Compulsory manumission clause;" but, if he will refer to the arguments which were offered by the court of Policy on that subject, and which arguments the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department did not consider as justifying any abandonment of the principle, he will find them not expressed in a tone of contumacy, but developing with clearness and precision the extent of injury which the members of the court of Policy conceived would attach to them under the operation of that part of the order. The explanation which lord Bathurst has given of the effect and operation of that particular clause, will, I have no doubt, induce their voluntary assent to it; but, under any circumstances, no kind of concession is intended by the government to diminish the fair operation of that enactment. I confess, Sir, that I entertain an entirely different opinion from that of the hon. and learned gentleman, with respect to the conduct of the planters of Demerara. I find a very extensive adoption of the enactments of the Trinidad order, and this at a period when late events might have given a sort of colouring to a more tardy compliance. I find them remonstrating argumentatively in all cases in which such adoption has not taken place. And it is most satisfactory for the House to understand, that the working of the new system of slave-legislation in that colony has not been attended with any practical disadvantage.

The hon. and learned gentleman appears to suppose that in other colonies not having legislatures no advance has been made. In St. Lucia, a local ordinance, to be confirmed by an order in council, analogous to that of Trinidad is in operation. In Berbice, the provisions now in force in Demerara are on the point of being immediately adopted. The same at the Cape of Good Hope. In the Mauritius it has been delayed by the accidental absence of the commissioners of inquiry. The hon. gentleman protests against the deference which has been paid to the colonists, in inviting their opinions on the order. But is he not aware that, to make legislation safe, it must be practical; and that to enforce on every colony the system of law, without those modifications which different forms of law (the French and the Dutch, for example,) make necessary; and without attention to the course of practice which has prevailed in each separate community, would be to act on erroneous principles of legislation? If, therefore, legislation has been retarded, inconsequence of in-stantaneous and compulsory legislation from home, as recommended by the hon. and learned gentleman, not having been pursued, that retardation has been attended with a practical benefit, which more than compensates for the delay.

The hon. and learned gentleman has commented on the backwardness of Jamaica in acting on the measures recommended by government. On some points, however, it is necessary to undeceive the House. He speaks slightingly of the act to prevent levies on slaves on Saturdays: he has adverted to the expressed opinions of the duke of Manchester. I beg to read to the House what his grace says with respect to that act, in a letter dated 18th October, 1825." In regard to the act of last session, to prevent levies on slaves on Saturdays, to which your lordship observes that I seem to have attached some importance, I certainly still regard it as a measure of protection to the slave, which enables him to carry his provisions to market on the Saturday; whereas, before the passing of this act, the slaves of indebted persons could not venture to go out to market on any other day than on Sunday; and I am of opinion, that nothing is more likely to contribute to the extinction of the Sunday market, than the liberty which is by the late act afforded to slaves of attending their markets on Saturday, without fear of being molested for the debts of their owners." The hon. gentleman appears also to undervalue materially the act for removing impediments to manumissions of slaves by owners having only limited interests [P. 4 of the Parliamentary Abstracts]. The House will find that this act completely lets in the principle of what has been called "compulsory manumissions;" that is, the substitution of money for property in slaves. Under this act, a party who has the ultimate remainder in a property on which there are slaves, and in whom, therefore, the property may be considered legally to exist, is compelled to receive a sum of money, assessed by a fair valuation, in lieu of any slave whom the tenant for life, under the permission of three magistrates, may think it expedient to manumit. I think, therefore, that the hon. gentleman is by no means disposed to express a fair degree of satisfaction with reference to this act of the legislature of Jamaica.

The hon. and learned gentleman has commented on the letter from the bishop of Jamaica, addressed to lord Bathurst, in which his lordship refers to the "hearty desire, on the part of the proprietors generally, or their representatives, cheerfully to promote, as far as their limited means will allow, any measures which he has thought it his duty to suggest for the benefit of the church." Now, with respect to this concluding phrase, any person who will take it with its context, will see that it was not used with reference to any benefit intended to accrue exclusively to the church, but that it was used in a more extended sense, with reference to the advantages which a church establishment was deemed likely to produce. Nothing can be more satisfactory than the accounts which have been received from the bishops of Jamaica and Barbadoes. They anticipate, and with reason, the best possible results from the measures adopted for the promotion of education throughout the colonies. They report that they have received every assurance of the most genuine and unaffected support. The Speaker of the Assembly of Barbadoes thus expresses himself on the part of the House:—"It is with peculiar pleasure and satisfaction that we interchange congratulations with your honour on the episcopal establishment which his majesty has been graciously pleased to confer on this portion of his dominions; and, under the fullest persuasion that it will be of the most important benefit to the interests, both temporal and eternal, of all classes of our community, we declare our readiness to concur in any measures that may be deemed necessary to give furtherance to the great objects of this institution." The hon. gentleman attributes this support of the espiscopal establishment to a hatred of sectarianism on the part of the colonists, rather than to any abstract regard for the interests of the church. Such opinions require to be expressed with qualification. Undoubtedly in many instances, the colonists have shown an antipathy to sectarianism, under the impression, whether erroneous or otherwise, that their property was likely to suffer under the influence of feelings dissemi- nated and encouraged by certain sectaries. And if they believe that all the advantages of education, and of the introduction of religious knowledge, can be obtained through the instrumentality of the church establishment, without danger, it is not unnatural that, independent of other motives, they should entertain a preference for that establishment. I beg to be understood as not entering into the question of the justice or injustice of the impressions so entertained, but as referring the motives of action on the part of the colonists to their proper source.

The hon. and learned gentleman has analysed the Slave-Evidence bill which was brought in in the Assembly of Jamaica. He is aware that the second bill that was brought in was infinitely more satisfactory than the first. But it is necessary that the House should understand the principles on which this Evidence bill and other meliorating measures have been rejected. I would refer to the speech of Air. Recorder Burke, on the 6th of December, 1825. He says, "My right to my slave is as much sanctioned by law, and should be as sacredly protected to me, as the right of any gentleman in England to every acre of land which he possesses. This right, so sanctioned, it is now intended to sacrifice at the shrine of delusion. Be it so. I would go hand in hand with the emancipators. I am as true a lover of freedom as the most sincere among them; and I believe that some of them are influenced by motives of honour and sincerity. But if we are to aid in the great work of freedom, let not justice be altogether lost sight of. Let us not be the only sufferers. Let a definite pledge of compensation be given. Let the amount be full, and fixed at once;—let the source from whence it is to flow be pointed out, and all opposition on the part of the colonists, it cannot be doubted, would instantly cease. But has this fair—this reasonable—this honest kind of consideration ever been bestowed upon our case? Not at all. Compensation has been hinted at, but at a distance; and we are required to go on, step by step, by means of the enactments of this House, to diminish the value of our properties; and when, atlast, they shall have become totally valueless, then we shall be asked, perhaps, exultingly, what is the amount of the compensation to which you think you are entitled? This, Sir, is the fate with which you are threat- ened." &c. I have no hesitation in expressing an opinion that this reasoning is fallacious—that it arises from a very imperfect appreciation of the measures proposed by his majesty's government. I look to the effect of time and explanation to correct these erroneous opinions; but I am justified in citing them, as a proof that the opposition in the West Indies to the measures of the government, is founded on a dread of the pecuniary ruin which is expected to ensue from them. I do not wonder, Sir, at the jealousy which is felt on the subject of property. If slavery be an accursed system, it is one for which I shall ever contend that the people of this country are equally responsible with the West-Indians; and we have only to recollect the jealousy which we feel at any supposed invasion of our properties here, to diminish the acrimony of our resentment against the effects of that alarm, however disproportionate and untenable, which operates on the West-Indian legislatures at the present moment. The same sentiment is conveyed in the address and petition to the king, from the Assembly of Jamaica, of the 16th of December, 1824. They request, "that a just and fair indemnity may be provided against the consequences which they have too much reason to apprehend will be produced by the measures which have emanated from the British parliament." Again, in their address and petition to the king in December, 1825, they say, "The injustice of forced innovation is greatly aggravated, because the government, which has meditated an awful change in our long-established institutions, has provided no fund to compensate the loss to which property is thereby exposed, and which has been already deteriorated in value." In Trinidad, the same sentiment is to be found;—"That emancipation should be fully indemnified to the owner, according to the produce of the estate; and allowing for the probable benefit to be expected from any late improvements on his property." In Tobago, in October 1825, the legislative council "invoke the justice of Great Britain, to which no appeal was ever made in vain." With all humility, yet with the confidence of men only demanding their rights, the council require of his majesty's government, that, if they stretch the hand of power to effect any further interference with the domestic management of slave property, they will, while they hold forth amelioration on the one hand, make proffer of ample "compensation on the other." If, as I have already said, the West-Indians have been too prone to identify the extreme views of certain individuals with the measures of government, founded, as they are, on the safe and temperate resolutions of the House of Commons, is it not to be expected that when those measures are separated from the context of such opinions, and their real tendency and object are duly analysed and appreciated by the colonists, the resistance and opposition which have too extensively prevailed throughout the West-Indies, will be found to relax and give way to a better feeling?

The honourable and learned gentleman has, in many instances, attacked the provisions which have been found in the consolidated slave acts of different islands; and has brought forward, as if they were new enactments, many clauses which I will not deny to be highly objectionable, but which are coupled with others of a more salutary nature. The honourable gentleman is aware, that when a consolidation act containing salutary new provisions, while it retains the defective enactments of prior legislation, is referred for the allowance of the Crown; if such allowance were withheld, the new provisions, however advantageous could not be brought into operation. But with respect to that prior date of legislation, I would beg to ask the hon. and learned gentleman, if the government of this country—if parliament—nay, even if the country itself, are not equally responsible with the colonists. Did not these laws receive the consent of the Crown, after they had passed through the colonial legislatures? Was not the country, in a certain sense, cognisant of all their clauses and provisions? And, if it did not then protest against them, why turn round now and charge the West-Indian proprietors with being exclusively destitute of common feeling and common humanity, for maintaining these laws, to the enactments of which, those who occupied seats in this House were, some years back, at least indirectly, conscient and were therefore equally responsible for all that violation of humanity which was scattered over the field of West-Indian legislation? What can be expected under such circumstances, unless the feelings of proprietors can be conciliated, and their services be made really available to the attainment of the object for which parliament stands pledged? What comparison can be made between such voluntary consent, founded on reason and conviction, and the force of any machinery to which the House might resort for the purpose of securing sudden and uncompromising obedience? The honourable gentleman has complained particularly of the Consolidation law of Barbadoes. By reference to page 20 of the papers presented to parliament, it will be seen that lord Bathurst informs the officer administering the government of Barbadoes, "That the king in council would have proceeded to disallow this act, had not his majesty been advised to suspend that measure for the present, in the hope that the legislative council and assembly will, at the earliest period, proceed to frame a new act, of a more satisfactory nature:" and, whatever defects that act may have (and that it has many, I should be the last person to deny)—the House, perhaps, will be disposed to anticipate a correction of those defects, when I read to them the concluding passage of the address of the Speaker of the Assembly in November last: "We, however, beg leave to assure your honour, that, if the noble Secretary for the Colonies will condescend to point out the defects and omissions of the act which passed the late House of Assembly, for consolidating our slave laws, and ameliorating the condition of that class of people so immediately dependent on us, we will take his suggestions into our earliest consideration—prompted as we are, both by humanity and by interest, not only to do all that can lawfully be accomplished for their benefit, but also by a sincere desire to meet, if it be possible, the wishes of his majesty's government: and to this end we will readily and earnestly co-operate with the other branches of the legislature."

The honourable and learned gentleman has commented in great detail on the various points of the Trinidad order in council, and has contended that none of them have been effectually adopted in any one of the legislative colonies. If the House will have patience to follow me in this part of the subject, which necessarily involves so much tediousness of detail, I think I can satisfy them that the statement of the hon. gentleman is of infinitely too sweeping a nature, and that he has failed to establish any sufficient ground for that opinion. It will be found, on re- ference to the abstracts of the acts passed, that six of the nine legislative colonies, Jamaica, Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, and St. Vincent's, have made enactments upon the subject of Sunday markets, and religious instruction. The other three, Barbadoes, Antigua, and St. Kitt's, have, as yet, not legislated on this point. It may be true, that some of those enactments may have repeated the words of former acts; but that repetition, under the circumstances of the invitation which has been given them to legislate, must be considered, in some respects, as new and substantive legislation. The honourable gentleman protests against the inefficiency of the legislation upon this subject in Jamaica. In the Clergy Consolidation act of December 1825, it is enacted, "That it shall be part of the duty of each rector in the island to appropriate a certain portion of time on each Sunday, either before or after the performance of divine worship, for the instruction of every free person, and of every slave who may be willing to be baptised and instructed in the doctrines of the Christian religion; and such rector shall, during such portion of time, attend in his church for the performance of this part of his duty." It is surely too much to contend that Jamaica has not legislated on this important subject.

With respect to evidence—six of the colonies, Barbadoes, the Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, and St. Vincent's, have legislated; and three of them, Jamaica, Antigua, and St. Kitt's, have not. If the provisions respecting the admissibility of the evidence of slaves, in the Grenada act, be examined, they will be found, notwithstanding the comments of the honourable and learned gentleman, to present an instance of effectual legislation, which, though not perhaps comprising all the advantages of the Trinidad order, claims for the legislature of Grenada praise rather than censure.

On the subject of marriage—four colonies, Jamaica, the Bahamas, Grenada, and St. Vincent's, have legislated; and five, Barbadoes, Antigua, Dominica, St. Kitt's, and Tobago, have not. An examination of the provisions respecting the marriage of slaves in the Bahamas, will justify my assertion of the merit of that legislation.

With respect to property—seven colonies, Jamaica, Barbadoes, the Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, at St. Vincent's, have made enactments; Antigua and St. Kitt's have not. In the Tobago act, after a preamble, reciting, "that the negroes have always been in the habit of enjoying their personal property without control; yet, nevertheless in order that such right may be ascertained by legal provisions," it is enacted, "That any slave in possession of personal property, of any description whatever, fairly acquired, shall be entitled to hold and enjoy the same, without the let, hindrance, claim, or molestation of any person whatever; and may freely, and without control, sell, barter, grant, or bequeath the same: and such slave shall be entitled to bring all actions personal for recovery of his or her personal property; and slavery shall not be a valid plea in abatement or bar of such action; any law, usage, or custom, to the contrary thereof in any wise notwithstanding."

With respect to manumissions—Jamaica, Barbadoes, the Bahamas, Grenada, and St. Vincent's, have made enactments; Antigua, Dominica, St. Kitt's, and Tobago, have not. I have already adverted to the manumission law of Jamaica. By that of Grenada, the substitution of a slave of equal value is permitted—which is an approximation towards a pecuniary substitution; and this important enactment is introduced, "That whenever any question shall arise touching the liberty of any person detained or claimed as a slave, the proof of the slavery shall in all such cases lie on the claimant of such person as a slave."

On the subject of the sale of slaves for debt—St. Vincent's has made an enactment; the rest have not.

On the non-separation of families—Barbadoes and Grenada have made enactments; the remaining colonies have not. In Grenada it is enacted, "That if in the execution of any judgment, sentence, decree, or order, any slave or slaves shall be sold separate and apart from their husband or wife, or child or children, or any unmarried female slave and child or children, as previously described, shall be sold separate and apart from each other, such sale shall be absolutely null and void, to all intents and purposes whatever."

On the subject of general punishments, Barbadoes, the Bahamas, Dominica, Grenada, Tobago, and St. Vincent's, have made enactments; Jamaica, Antigua, and St. Kitt's, have not. The hon. gentleman has commented on the St. Vincent's act, in depreciation of its clauses; but an examination of them will show that they have incorporated much of the Trinidad order; and, although the prohibition to carry any such instrument as the cart-whip is limited to slaves, and the hon. gentleman infers that white persons are not prevented from doing so; it is well known that, in point of practice, it is the slaves who are in the habit of carrying such instruments.

With respect to the flogging of females, Barbadoes, the Bahamas, and Dominica, have made enactments; Jamaica, Antigua, Grenada, St. Kitt's, Tobago, and St. Vincent's, have not.

With respect to Saving-banks, no enactments have been made.

For establishing a protector of slaves, Barbadoes, the Bahamas, Grenada, Tobago, and St. Vincent's, have made enactments; Jamaica, Antigua, Dominica, and St. Kitt's, have not. In Tobago it is enacted, "That the President of the council, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, and the Judges of the court of Common Pleas, shall be the guardians of slaves; with full power and authority to entertain all complaints made to them by any slave, for or in respect of any cruelty, ill-usage, or violation of the provisions of the act."

It will be argued, perhaps, that the statements which I have made, and to the accuracy of which I pledge myself, establish the fact of the general inefficiency of the legislation which has taken place. It is in no degree necessary for my argument that that inefficiency should be disproved. The question is: has not a real commencement been actually made? Have not valuable enactments been passed? Has not enough been done to show (especially when the reasons which have prevented the accomplishment of more are considered), that there has been no degree of contumacy and resistance, which makes the immediate interference of this House necessary? And if its immediate interference be not necessary, what advantage is there in pledging the House to an abstract resolution, which is in no degree meant to interfere with the direct measures which have been taken by his majesty's government, and announced to the House? I would appeal to the House, whether it be not time enough to consider the propriety of acceding to such a resolution, when the time shall arrive in which the late proceedings of his majesty's government shall be a matter not of speculation, but of record.

I cannot conclude without calling the attention of the House to the admirable observations which will be found in page 91 of the "Further Papers," by Mr. Jeremie, on whom devolved the duty of preparing the slave code for the island of St. Lucia. He states his object to have been, "To render the law as mild as is consistent with a state of compulsory service, so as to put an end to alterations, and even to proposals of alterations, which contribute more to diminish the value of property than the alterations themselves. And therefore, to repeal all those cruel enactments which even the existence of the Slave-trade could not excuse, under pretence of their being necessary to reduce to submission the untamed African, but which since the abolition had become a needless disgrace to the penal code. Yet, as the two chief incentives to exertion are the hopes of rewards and dread of punishments; feeling that, in every stage of society, the happiness of inferiors will necessarily continue in the hands of those above them, to leave the owner in legal possession of sufficient power; to interfere, as already remarked, only where cruelty commences; to compile a system rather practically useful than theoretically pleasing; and having constantly in recollection the resolutions of the House of Commons, earl Bathurst's instructions, and Mr. Canning's speech, with a scrupulous, and I trust, proper regard to the very great value of the properties at stake, 'to frame such effectual and decisive 'regulations for meliorating the condition 'of the slaves, as will gradually prepare 'them for a participation of the rights 'and privileges enjoyed by all other 'classes of his majesty s subjects.'" Mr. Jeremie proceeds to contrast the antagonist feelings of certain abolitionists and certain West-Indians. He adds, that the only safe course is that middle course prescribed by his majesty's government; and he concludes with this important observation: "The conviction is becoming general, and it is my fervent hope, that from the day of the abolition of the trade may be dated the gradual decline of West-Indian slavery; that under British government, like British villeinage, it will imperceptibly become extinct, but with a celerity proportioned to the more general circulation of useful knowledge."

I have trespassed too long on the time of the House to be justified in recapitulating the arguments which I have presumed to bring forward, to induce the House to reject the resolution proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman. But before I sit down, I beg leave to notice and to repel a personal attack which the hon. and learned gentleman has made on me in the course of a former debate. I beg to deny the charge that I am an "uncompromising supporter of all the abuses of the West-Indian system," or that I am "the supporter of the West-Indian interests," in the invidious sense in which the hon. and learned gentleman has applied that term to me. I refer the hon. gentleman to every thing that I may have ever said or written, to any words that I may have ever used in any conversation, whether confidential or otherwise; and I defy him to show that I have ever uttered one word in contradiction to the spirit of the resolutions of 1823, which received the unanimous sanction of parliament. In the situation which I hold, whatever variations of opinion I might entertain, I have considered myself bound in honour to adhere, with the utmost strictness, to those resolutions; and I repeat the challenge to any man to show that I have ever expressed myself otherwise.

The principles which have influenced the government in the legislation which they have carried into effect, have been so clearly and eloquently stated by my right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as to make it unnecessary for me to repeat his arguments. Nothing can have been less mysterious than the views and feelings of the government on the whole subject.

I have been induced to say thus much in justice to myself; and I trust that the hon. gentleman will abstain in future from making imputations on my conduct, which are calculated to operate prejudicially against me in the discharge of the duties belonging to the situation which I have the honour to hold. No charge can be more inconvenient than that of partisanship, which has been preferred against me by the hon. and learned gentleman.

Mr. Brougham

said, he had no intention of charging the hon. member with being a partisan, in the sense in which he seemed to have understood the word. All he meant to impute to the hon. member was, that he appeared to have a greater delicacy in interfering with the interests, or supposed interests, of the West-India planters, than any other of the members of his majesty's government; whereas, from the official situation which he held, it might reasonably have been expected, that he would have surpassed them all in zeal to carry the measures recommended by the orders in council into effect. But, to contrast the conduct of the hon. gentleman with that of the right hon. the Secretary for Foreign Affairs: when the hon. member for Weymouth last brought forward his motion on this subject, the hon. gentleman proposed meeting that motion by a direct negative, whereas the right hon. Secretary was contented to get rid of it by moving the previous question.

Dr. Lushington

said, that three years had now elapsed since the resolutions of that House had been passed, and the order in council issued, yet not a single colony had, up to the present day, taken one step towards adopting the principles recommended to them by parliament and the Crown. The House was, however, told to wait till another session, in the expectation that these colonial legislatures, which had hitherto done nothing, might at last manifest signs of repentance, and, in good earnest, begin to carry the wishes of government and the country into execution. How could they, however, expect that any mere declarations of their opinions would have any effect, when they found that persons of the highest character and the greatest power in this country actually, by their conduct and expressions, gave a countenance to the resistance which the colonists on all occasions offered to the measures of the abolitionists? If he was, indeed, to judge from what was said in another place, he might assert that even some of his majesty's ministers held sentiments different from those which others of the same ministry maintained in that House; and that the utterance of those sentiments confirmed the colonists in the opposition which had been the subject of complaint, and protracted the time when a final amelioration of the condition of the slaves could be effected. Not two months ago, these opinions had been made public; and lest they might suppose that there was any thing in the language or the circumstances which could possibly create a misconception, he would read the one and the other; and when they saw how different the language and the feeling of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affears seemed to be from the noble and learned lord at the head of the other House, they might, perhaps, acknowledge the propriety of those efforts of his learned friend, which were now called unnecessary, and feel less disposition to blame those who wished to press upon the House, through the means of petitions, the necessity of immediate and urgent declarations. The right hon. Secretary said, on the discussion of the question in that House, that no Christian could possibly deny that the spirit of the Christian religion was hostile to slavery. This was language consonant at once to truth, and to the spirit of the professions which his majesty's ministers had so often made in that House; but what said the noble and learned lord in the other House? "A great deal had been said about this condition of slavery being contrary to the genius and spirit of the British constitution, and of the Christian religion; but when he considered that the system had been promoted by so great a man as lord Somers, he must hesitate in saying that it was so contrary to the spirit of the British constitution as had been alleged." Now, he was sure that at this time no man who spoke his honest opinion could doubt that slavery, in all its shapes, was wholly hostile and repugnant to the principles of the British constitution; but in point even of historical fact, the assertion of the noble and learned lord was not borne out by any authority. There was no proof whatever that he had been able to discover (and some of his friends who were much better versed than he pretended to be in the constitutional history of England, had been equally unsuccessful in their researches) of lord Somers having approved of or supported the establishment of slavery. It was true that he was a party to the Assiento contract, which formed a part of the treaty of Utrecht, but this fell short of proving against him the guilt which the noble and learned lord sought to lay to his charge. If, however, it had been true, it formed no argument for the perpetuation of a system which every feeling of justice and humanity condemned; and would it not have been better to bury in oblivion a fault which was not lord Somers', but that of his times, and which could only cast a stain upon his just reputation, while it left the question, in support of which it was adduced, wholly untouched? But there was much more in the address of the noble and learned lord which he could not forbear from blaming. He had said, that "the same system of slavery was adopted and supported by a bench of bishops, as learned and as pious as had existed in any period of this country's history, and that when he recollected this fact, he could Dot bring himself to believe that it was so contrary to the genius of Christianity as some people had said." Now, he had much difficulty in believing, that if the question were fairly put to a bench of bishops, in that or in any other place, they would be found to raise their voices in support of so odious a practice; and he was borne out in that opinion by the part which the clergy of the present day had taken in this question. Of the numerous petitions which had been laid on the table of the House, very few indeed would be found which did not contain the signature of the clergyman resident in the parish from which they proceeded. He had dwelt so long upon this topic, because until the principle were admitted, nothing could be hoped to be effected towards destroying the system. But, although he thus openly declared his disapprobation of slavery, he had never advocated its extinction by any other than just and honourable means. He did not believe that the reluctance which the West-Indian proprietors abroad had to adopt the recommendations of this country, proceeded from any innate love of slavery, but from those prejudices, and that contamination which persons bred in that scene of error could not avoid. He could not be accused of imputing unjust feelings to the West-Indians, when he said he believed they had done no more than he might have done, if fortune had thrown him into the same situation. The great practical objection which was raised against the putting an end to this system of slavery was, that it would attack the property of a great many individuals. This was a difficulty, he knew; but in the interests of states, as in the affairs of private persons, any deviation from the principles of rectitude and honour cost great trouble in recovering the right path. But he had never said, that the loss which must attend this measure should fall exclusively on the West-India body, or that they might not be entitled to compensation. To make out their title to that compensation, however, they ought to evince a prompt obedience and acquiescence in the wishes which parliament and the country had so unequivocally expressed. It was their duty to do this immediately, or at any time which suited the interests of the slaves; and he believed that if the measure were carried into full and immediate practice, so far from the property of the West-Indians suffering any loss, its value would be increased by its being placed on a basis of security. The good will and fidelity of the slaves, which experience had shown it was not difficult to secure, would then be a valuable protection to their masters, instead of their feelings being excited to mutiny and revolt, as they were now so frequently, by a sense of their wrongs. He acknowledged that it was not possible to do all that was contemplated to the present race of negroes; but there could be no reason why the evils under which they laboured should be extended to their offspring. But the bulk of the people of England, he knew, and the House knew also, by the number of petitions which had been laid upon the table, were in unison with the feelings which he now expressed; and he was sure there was no pecuniary sacrifice which the planters could reasonably require, that they were not ready to make. When he urged, as he did vehemently, the necessity of some immediate remedy, he would remind the House of the consequences of delay. Even at this moment, the condition of the slaves in the West-Indies was such as to excite the most painful sympathy in the minds of every person of ordinary feeling. The hon. and learned member then quoted from Mr. Coleridge's "Six months in the West Indies," which he said by no means gave an exaggerated picture of the sufferings of the negroes, a description of the painful feelings excited by the sight of a female negro labouring in the fields, which, however some persons might choose to scoff at, it would convince every one with the feelings of a man, that no time ought to be lost in applying a remedy to such evils. In Barbadoes it was stated, that many of the distressed whites were supported by the charity of the negro population; and notwithstanding the degraded state of the slaves in the island of Jamaica, the bishop of that place attributed all the vices of which they were guilty to their want of religion. In the speech of Mr. Maynes, in the Legislative Assembly, he said, that although he was surrounded by hundreds of negroes, he could lay his head on his pillow in perfect security, and without a door being locked or a bolt drawn, or the least expectation of injury either to person or property. If these representations were true, what reason could there be for delaying to another session, that which might now be profitably and justly performed. What reason could be urged against this House declaring that, unless the West Indian body should adopt some efficient measures, they would take the matter into their own hands, and do that which every argument, and the most enduring patience had hitherto failed in inducing the West Indians to adopt? It was too plain, that that body were actuated by a temper directly opposed to the opinion of the House. The votes of money to Mr. M'Queen and to the editor of the "John Bull," proved that they not only encouraged a bold and open defence of slavery, but that they engaged agents to attack with the most scurrilous abuse, all who differed in opinion from them on this point. It was in vain to pretend that the opposition which was raised in this country against slavery, was only created and kept up by the Anti-Slavery Society. On the contrary, the force of public opinion was its only support, and the perfect unanimity with which persons of all opinions in matters of religion and politics approached the House, and claimed by their petitions the fulfilment of their common wishes. Before he sat down he would take that opportunity of stating, that he had no personal enmity to the West-India interests. On the contrary, he was a member of a committee, in 1807, wherein it was proposed to allow sugar to be distilled; and on that occasion, singly and alone, on his own side of the House, he supported the motion of government. On the slave consolidation laws, too, he found that some clauses pressed more heavily on the proprietors than he thought was fair; in consequence of which, he altered the clauses, so as to protect their interests. He mentioned these facts only that it might not be said of the observations he had made that night, that they were those of a man who, having nothing of his own at stake, was forward to perform an act of humanity at the expense of others. In conclusion, he expressed a wish that the West-Indians abroad would attend with impartiality to the discussions in that House, and act with such justice towards their slaves, as would render any interference on the part of the legislature unnecessary—a measure which he was sure would not only be universally agreeable to the people of England, but which might be adopted without any loss of property to themselves.

Mr. Bernal

said, that no man would be found to stand up as the bold, uncompromising advocate of slavery, to defend the same as an abstract principle; but, in making this admission, he must at the same time declare, that no arguments had been or could be advanced to justify the indiscreet haste with which some hon. members would proceed to the adoption of measures calculated to produce a very injurious effect upon the whole property vested in the West-Indian colonies. He, in common with the general body of planters, would be happy to follow that course of proceedings which would lead to any real amelioration of the condition of the negroes; but the same must be traced out slowly and cautiously, and, in order to produce certain and beneficial effects, must be undertaken with a due regard to the capability of the negroes for receiving those advantages which it might be proposed to confer on them.

It could not be denied, that the public mind and feeling of the empire of Great Britain had been, in many instances, unfairly and unkindly directed (to use no harsher expressions) against the West-Indian proprietors, and it was but a natural consequence that the planters should themselves feel at times sorely and deeply, since they had not experienced that candid, just, and becoming treatment which they, equally with any others of their fellow subjects, had a right to expect upon questions affecting their dearest interests. When attempts were made to enforce new and-most important regulations and enactments, with a degree of precipitation unparalleled in history,—when irritating language was resorted to on frequent occasions,—the West-Indian proprietors, and particularly those resident in the colonies, naturally conceived that their privileges and interests were attacked, and that it was time for them to step forward and use every fair means in their own defence.

The just and necessary principle of compensation had not been openly and generally avowed on the part of the nation at large: true it was, that several of the anti-slavery petitions which had been addressed to the House of Commons had recognised the doctrine of compensation; but the language, tone, and temper of some of the petitioners were indeed remarkable. He would beg permission to read an extract from one of the petitions which had been received by parliament, and printed by their order, and which by chance had arrested his attention.

"The petitioners beg to approach the House, to express their abhorrence of slavery as a violation of the natural rights of man, contrary to the spirit of the British constitution, and utterly at variance with the dictates of the Christian religion; and that your petitioners cannot but regard the permission which our country has given to the system of slavery in our colonies as a great national crime, justly meriting the Divine vengeance. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly and earnestly entreat the House to lose no time in absolving our country from the guilt and disgrace of continuing this nefarious system; and to grant to that portion of our fellow men now held in a state of barbarous and cruel bondage within the British colonies, a full, free, and immediate emancipation,—a measure the petitioners are convinced is safe and politic, as well as just, both to the colonial proprietor and to the slave; and in this opinion they are supported by numerous and well-authenticated facts on record, and to which they would recall the attention of the House, but most particularly to the emancipation of the whole of the slave-population of the southern and western colonies of St. Domingo, in 1793, by the French commissioners, which was executed at once, without occasioning any disorder among the slaves, or other ill consequences to the colony. Your petitioners refer to this event with the greater confidence, as they submit to the House it is perfectly conclusive as to the practicability, safety and advantage of immediate emancipation," &c.

Now, would any hon. member say, after hearing that the case of St. Domingo had been thus referred to as an example, that the colonists of Jamaica, Barbadoes, and of every other settlement, had not good and sufficient reason to be alarmed? And could his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) in candour state, that the colonists were not justified in evincing some degree of reluctance in giving their consent to the measures which had been proposed, and which they considered as emanating from the Anti-slavery society?

The abolition of the state of slavery would be found, by referring to the history of every nation, to have been an improvement that had attained its growth gradually and slowly. Perhaps it was not generally known, but it was a most important fact (to which he anxiously begged the kind attention of the House), that until the year 1775, personal slavery was not completely abolished in the mother country, for in that year slavery was still in existence in Scotland, to a certain extent. The act of the 15th Geo. 3rd. cap. 28, was then passed, which was entitled, "an act for altering and amending several acts of parliament of Scotland, respecting colliers, coal-burners, and salters." The recital of this act was in part—"Whereas by the statute law of Scotland, as explained by the judges of the courts of law there, many colliers, and coal-burners, and salters, are in a state of slavery or bondage, bound to the collieries and salt-works, where they work for life, transferable with the collieries and salt-works, when their original masters have no further use for them." In fact until this legislative measure was enacted, many of those labourers who worked in coal-mines and salt-works in Scotland were absolutely bound to the soil.

If, then, it was only in the year 1775, that personal slavery, existing if even to a limited degree, was completely abolished in the mother country, was it too much to ask for less haste and precipitation, and at least for some further portion of time during which amelioration, leading to such extensive alterations in the existing state of things as were contemplated by his hon. and learned friends, might be introduced on the other side of the Atlantic? However anomalous the state of absolute slavery might be considered in the year 1826 in England, still it should never be forgotten, that such a stale had been originally created in the West-Indian colonies, and had, till a very recent period, been encouraged and cherished by and under the positive and solemn influence and protection of British law. Local institutions, and the whole frame of society had been originated and supported in our transatlantic possessions with reference to this condition of things. Could it then be a matter of reproach, or even of surprise, in the mind of any candid and reflecting person, that the opinions or even prejudices of those who inhabited the West-Indian colonies, should not ex- perience that decisive and rapid alteration which alone could satisfy the ultra-enthusiastic wishes of those who declaimed so loudly against the colonists? Far be it from him to taunt his hon. and learned friend for any change which his sentiments might have undergone on these important questions, he would only ask of him a share of tender and considerate allowance for those who maintained opinions which, to some extent, had been fortified by the reasoning of his hon. friend.

The legislative bodies of the different West-Indian islands, and more particularly the House of Assembly of Jamaica, had been severely attacked for displaying what was termed a marked hostility and resistance to the resolutions which had emanated from the mother country; and, in fact, it had been asserted, that no measures for the amelioration of the condition of the negroes had been enacted in the Jamaica House of Assembly. With respect to the question of the admission of slave-evidence, he (Mr. Bernal) would openly express his regret that the bill had been rejected in the Assembly of Jamaica, which had been introduced for affecting this alteration in the laws of that island. In his humble opinion, formed at a distance, this measure was one which, under proper provisions, might be framed and carried into effect with every possible security and advantage. But, although the bill for the admission of slave-evidence had not been adopted by the legislature of Jamaica, still he earnestly solicited the attention of the House of Commons to the important difference of facts, and alteration of sentiments, which existed between the periods of its first and subsequent introduction. When, in the year 1823, the measure was first agitated in the Assembly of Jamaica, it was supported by the mover alone. Upon its second introduction, in the year 1825, a considerable and important debate ensued, and which was protracted for the space of two days. Speeches had been delivered in the course of such discussion, both for and against the measure, which were marked by very considerable talent and eloquence; even his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, had expressed his own favourable opinion of the ability and eloquence with which the debates had been conducted. It was true, that the bill was finally thrown out of the House of Assembly, by a decided majority, the numbers being 24 to 13, still a considerable progress must be allowed to have been made, if, in the year 1825, thirteen members voted for the measure, when, at the period of only two years before, it met with the support of one single member.

Much mischief had undoubtedly been occasioned by the violent tone of argument, or rather of declamation, which had unfortunately been adopted in some quarters at home. The residents in the colonies, and very probably their representatives in the legislative bodies, were not merely naturally irritated by intemperance of language and repetition of severe accusation, they became alarmed when they heard that their right of property was denied, or evasively passed over in the discussions which took place on some of the different anti-slavery meetings in Great Britain; and the belief that the title of the colonists to their property was to be questioned by the nation at large, and compensation withheld, had spread widely.

He (Mr. Bernal) contended, that, in commenting upon the conduct of the colonial legislatures, it was not fair, on the part of those who thus commented, to confine their attention solely to what had been done since 1823: the more just and candid course would be, to extend their observation and inquiry over the space of the last twenty years, and to embrace in their consideration the many and important measures which had been during that period voluntarily originated and promoted by the colonial legislatures, or by the common consent of the proprietors, for the improvement and amelioration of the condition of the slave-population; and be it ever remembered, that such measures were so spontaneously adopted, without the resolutions or recommendations of a British House of Commons, or of the executive government of England. And to speak more particularly of the island of Jamaica, with which he was connected—it must be remarked,—That formerly punishments were unlimited. Now they were limited by law to thirty-nine lashes.

Twenty years back, but few negroes were baptized in Jamaica. Now a very considerable part of the slave-population have received the right of baptism. Twenty years ago, the different churches and places of worship were scarcely resorted to by the slaves. But now, not merely had the number of the various places of worship been materially increased, but they were attended by great numbers of the negro-population. Some years back, the marriage rite was almost unknown. Now the marriage ceremony had been resorted to in several instances. Formerly, the sugar-mills on estates were worked on Sundays. Now overseers are punishable by law in the case of working sugar-mills on Sundays. Formerly, the negro-grounds were cultivated on the Sunday. Now twenty-six clear working days are by law required to be allowed to the slaves for such purpose; and those slaves, who of their own free-will, work in their grounds on the Sunday, are induced by the desire of making money, in preference to devoting that day to any other occupation. Formerly, manumissions of slaves were subjected to pecuniary duties. Now these are removed, and a manumission can be completed without any difficulty.

At one time, slaves had unfortunately but insufficient protection afforded to them by the law against cruel or improper treatment. Now the magistrates are formed into an efficient council of protection to investigate the complaints of the slaves; and instances are not wanting where, in cases of cruel treatment on the part of their owners, convictions having taken place, and proper sentences having been awarded, the negroes have been freed by the law, and provided with an annuity for life. And it should never be forgotten, that the number of executions on capital convictions, as to the negro-population in the island of Jamaica, had very considerably diminished. However, he (Mr. Bernal) though he could expatiate here at some length, would not weary the patience of the House by pursuing this branch of the subject further in detail: the measures and alterations to which he had been in part referring had occurred prior to the year 1823; but since that period other important improvements might be reasonably alluded to. An act had passed the Assembly of Jamaica to prevent levies on slaves on the Saturday. The most unjust aspersions had been insinuated in this country against the motives of those who promoted this last measure; it had been alleged, that it was one which had been intended to benefit the master, and not the slave. Now he (Mr. Bernal) would firmly assert, that the object of this law was to render the Sabbath as much as possible a day of rest, another day being given on which the slaves might be allowed by their owners to go abroad, without any fear of their being taken or levied upon for debt, they being protected against any process of law on the Saturday. An act had also lately passed the legislature of Jamaica to enable slaves to receive bequests of money, or other personal estate, thereby confirming by the solemn sanction of law what the general custom and uniform feeling of the island of Jamaica had before warranted and respected. An act had likewise been introduced in the House of Assembly for removing impediments to the manumission of slaves, when their owners had only a limited interest, as an estate for life, or in similar cases.

A great degree of ignorance prevailed in this country, as to the actual condition of the negro-population. It was a well-as-certained fact, that in the island of Jamaica, there were upon many estates several slaves who, over and above their little articles of furniture and implements attached to their houses and gardens, possessed, in addition to their stock of pigs and poultry, considerable sums of money in hard cash, with reference to their condition of life, in many cases to an amount varying from ten to eighty or ninety pounds; and some slaves were to be found in Jamaica, who, by a kind of subinfeudation, though in repugnance to the laws, and by custom or tacit consent, were themselves the proprietors of slaves. He (Mr. Bernal) had even been informed, that a practice had lately been introduced, orattempted to be introduced, in Jamaica, to permita slave to file a bill of discovery in the court of Chancery, by the registrar of the court, as his prochain ami. Surely it must then be conceded, that public feeling had not been torpid in the island of Jamaica. Great alterations and improvements had been advancing in that colony: though the progress of amelioration had been silent and unostentatious, it had been certain and beneficial. As to the condition of the negro-population, with respect to the attention generally paid to their support, sustenance, and comfort, in health and sickness, youth and age, he trusted no serious complaint would now be expressed. A great point had been gained in the temper and spirit with which all questions had been received and treated by the colonial assemblies. They were no longer neglected—they were at all events, seriously and earnestly deliberated upon. It excited his astonishment to hear any attempt made to level a charge against the colonists, on the ground of their hostility to the religious instruction of the negroes. He would ask, had not the bishops who had lately been appointed to Jamaica and Barbadoes experienced the most respectful, gratifying, and sincere reception and encouragement in their important missions? The colonial legislatures had been most willing and desirous to promote every measure calculated to assist the ecclesiastical body in the furtherance and discharge of their sacred functions. It was well known that the Wesleyan missionaries, and other ministers of the Gospel, had been kindly and favourably received in Jamaica and Antigua; and, for the truth of this statement, or, for correction (if in error), he would appeal to his hon. friend, the member for Dover (Mr. Butterworth). The establishment of an ecclesiastical body in Jamaica and Barbadoes must, in time, secure respect and good feeling towards ministers of the Gospel of every denomination, who would unite with the dignity and sacred duty of their high calling that prudent discretion with reference to the anomalous condition of society in the colonies, which could be strictly warranted without a deviation from the singleness of mind becoming a Christian minister, or from the holy tenets of Christianity itself. He for one would frankly confess, that, though he believed great and important improvements had taken place throughout the colonies, still he trusted that every possible amelioration, consistent with the interest and happiness of all classes, might be continually encouraged; and he was persuaded that none would be efficient without the general dissemination of simple yet sound religious instruction amongst the negroes. Where the pure and beneficent truths of the Christian religion could be carefully planted and nurtured, amelioration and improvement might be expected to grow to maturity under its healthful shade and protection. These sentiments he claimed not as peculiar to himself, or to other members of the House of Commons who were connected with the colonies; but he trusted he might assert them as common to the body of West-Indian proprietors at large. It was unjust to represent the colonists as the intolerant enemies of religious instruction. But he was sorry to be obliged to complain of the conduct which had been pursued by some ill-judging persons upon West-Indian questions. He knew his honourable friends who followed their particular line of action in the House of Commons to be men guided by honest and praiseworthy motives, and by sentiments of philanthropy and kindness, though he might be allowed to observe, that sometimes they suffered their judgments to be somewhat overpowered by the full tide of their enthusiasm. Many members of the Anti-Slavery Society out of the House (he was persuaded) pursued their course in the utmost sincerity of purpose; but some proceedings had been adopted by individuals which were calculated to rouse the most angry and indignant feelings. Pamphlets had been circulated, holding up the West-Indian body to the obloquy of the public in the most determined and unkind manner, and blending old and almost forgotten charges with new topics of crimination. Some members of parliament had been placarded in different parts of England, on account of the votes they had thought proper to give on occasions when West-Indian subjects had been discussed. The electors of Great Britain had been addressed in no very moderate or subdued language, and called upon not to return to the new parliament, at the ensuing election, any member belonging to the West-Indian body, or at least any candidate who would not distinctly pledge himself to support the abolition of slavery. This line of conduct was not in his opinion fair and just, and certainly it could not be politic with reference to the objects themselves, which the advocates of amelioration professed to have in view. However, he trusted his West-Indian friends would with manliness and dignity disregard every circumstance tending to irritation, and consider every question bearing upon their unfortunate position and situation with moderation and temper.

Something had been thrown out in the course of this debate by way of remark upon what had been uttered in another place (the House of Lords) by a distinguished legal character (the chancellor) on this question. He (Mr. B.) conceived that venerable personage to have expressed his honest sentiments openly upon the rights of the colonists. The question of property in his (Mr. Bernal's) opinion should never be lost sight of in these discussions. It was unnecessary for him to inquire into the original nature and mode of acquisition of West-Indian property. Whether it might be considered as the fruit of spoliation, though it might be contaminated with the blot and sin of slavery, however the current of popular feeling in this country might have been diverted into a new direction, still it had been long recognised and sanctioned by Great Britain, and it was as much entitled to the strong, determined, and undisguised, protection of parliament, as any other species of property; and the government of this country were solemnly and indissolubly bound to deal most fairly and honourably with the present proprietors. It was the duty of the British parliament to act without evasion, and with justice to the proprietors, at the same time that they were endeavouring to distribute humanity to the slave-population, to appease the lively and not unreasonable fears of the former, while they sought to hold out hopes, or to ameliorate the condition of the latter. It was very easy for those who were not possessed of any property vested in the colonies, or who had not families or relatives to support out of such resources, to deal out abstract propositions, vitally affecting West-Indian interests, and many other interests created by the complicated arrangements of society, and to divest their own minds of all fears as to the result of any measures to be proposed; but it was not so easy for those whose very existence, as well as that of their wives, children, and dearest connections, absolutely depended upon the preservation of that property, to deliberate with the same imperturbable calmness as those not personally interested appeared to do, upon every new and untried scheme of amelioration, and to discard every mental apprehension as to the result of peremptory measures of interference. In expressing this, he did not pretend to defend every erroneous or blameable transaction which might have occurred in the colonies; and God forbid that he should be for one moment suspected of being hostile to the real improvement of the condition of the slaves. He would scorn to make any appeal to the passions of honourable members: he would not descend to any such artifice; he would only presume to address himself to the uniform and strict sense of justice of a British parliament—that justice which it was its bounden and sacred duty, as it was the most solid foundation of its own greatness and dignity, to distribute fairly through every portion of the empire, and to every class of his majesty's subjects.

Mr. C. R. Ellis

stated, that, having concurred in the unanimous vote by which the task of carrying into effect the resolutions passed by the House in 1823, was imposed upon his majesty's government; and not seeing any thing in the course pursued by them which was calculated in any degree to impair the confidence then reposed in them by the House; nor having heard from them any intimation of a wish to call for the intervention of parliament to aid them in the performance of that duty, he could not but consider the present motion as of the same character with those measures which, while their professed object was to strengthen the hands of government, were, in point of fact, as had been stated by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affair, calculated only to embarrass the government in the execution of the already sufficiently difficult task which had been devolved upon them;—and, upon these general grounds, without going into any of the details of the question, he should have felt justified in refusing his assent to the motion of the hon. and learned gentleman. But as that hon. and learned gentleman had thought fit to comment at great length and with much severity upon the conduct of the colonial legislatures, though he (Mr. Ellis) would not at that late hour follow him into those details, nor tempt him to execute his threat of bringing forward that reserve of further details which he held in terrorem over the House, he trusted that the House, considering his connexion with the colonies, and the part which he had taken upon this question, would afford him their indulgence in offering some few observations upon the proceedings of those legislatures.

He did not, however, stand forward as the indiscriminating champion of the colonial legislatures. He was one of those whom the legislature of the colony with which he was immediately connected had described as having "undertaken to give advice upon a subject which they did not understand," and whose conduct in so doing they "lamented as an interference which had led to erroneous imputations with respect to the motives of their proceedings."

However, he regretted that such should have been felt by them to have been either the character or the effect of the course which, in common with some of the most respectable and best-informed of the West-India planters in this country, he had felt it his duty to pursue, he could not, in deference to that authority, disavow any suggestions which he had offered to his majesty's government, with a view to the improvement of the condition of the negroes, or retract any expression of approbation which he had uttered in that House, with respect to the measures which had been recommended for adoption in the colonies, as far as he had found it in his power to approve of them. As little was he disposed to conceal the regret—the sincere and deep regret—which he felt at the reception which those recommendations had met with from the colonial legislatures. But, on the other hand, he should consider it most unworthy conduct on his part, if he were to allow any feeling of resentment at the disparaging terms in which the Assembly of Jamaica had thought fit to express themselves, with respect to the course pursued by the West-India proprietors in England, to prevent him from contradicting any imputations upon the conduct of that Assembly, which he conscientiously believed not to have been merited; or from justifying any of their proceedings which appeared to him to have been misunderstood or misrepresented.

He conceived their conduct to have been both misunderstood and misrepresented; and therefore, however reluctant to trespass upon the patience of the House, he felt it his duty to call their attention to some of the most important of the proceedings of that Assembly.

The point to which he was anxious first and most particularly to call the attention of the House, was the conduct of the colonial legislatures and the inhabitants of the colonies with respect to the religious instruction of the negroes. He was anxious to call the attention of the House to this point, not only because it was that on which the colonies had been more than on any other misrepresented, trot because it was that with respect to which their conduct and disposition were most important; because the religious instruction of the negroes was the best foundation for all improvement in their moral condition; because it was the only safe preparation for the exercise of those civil rights which it was the wish of the House and of the country ultimately to confer upon them. Now, upon this point, what had been the conduct of the colonial legislatures? The government had undertaken the reform of the church establishment in the colonies, and had sent out Bishops to superintend that reform. But in order effectually to exercise that superintendence, it was necessary that they should receive authority from the colonial legislatures. Did the colonial legislatures shew any reluctance in granting them that authority? On the contrary, immediately on their arrival bills were passed, of which it might be enough to say, that they gave to the bishops all the powers which they themselves required. But as these bills had been treated with somewhat of contempt by the hon. and learned gentleman, as measures altogether nugatory and inefficient for any good purpose, he would take the liberty of reading to the House the heads of some of the clauses of the bill passed by the Assembly of Jamaica.

By clause 2, the ecclesiastical laws of Great Britain are extended to the island. By clause 15, the rectors are directed to appropriate a certain portion of time of each Sunday for baptising and instructing free persons and slaves. By clause 16, the Receiver-general is directed not to pay their stipend without a certificate from the bishop that they had performed the duties stated in the preceding clause. By clause 17, a forfeiture of 200l. is imposed on the rector being absent for more than three months without license. By clause 19, the rectors are directed to visit estates, plantations, workhouses, hospitals, and gaols, to afford instruction to the slaves, with consent of owner. By clause 21, it is enacted that no fees are to be taken from slaves. By clause 22, vestries are empowered to lay taxes for the erection and purchase of chapels, burial grounds, and parsonage houses, and keeping them in repair. By clause 30, the bishop is empowered to appoint substitutes for incompetent rectors. By clause 32, it is enacted, that the curates appointed by the governor to propagate the gospel among the slaves, and to instruct them in the Christian religion, shall receive 500l. per annum, on showing certificate from the bishop for the performance of these duties. By clause 33, the duties of the curates are defined: viz. to reside in the parish; to perform divine service on Sun- day, and to attend once a week to give instruction in catechism to all persons, free or slaves, without fee or reward. By clause 35, it is directed that marriages are to be encouraged among slaves, the curates to perform the ceremony, banns being duly published, and the consent of the owners obtained. By clause 37, the vestries are empowered to levy 600l. to assist in building chapels in other parishes. By clause 41, it is directed that a separate register of baptisms, marriages, and burials of slaves be kept by the curates.

Notwithstanding the construction which the hon. and learned gentleman had thought fit to put upon the letter of the bishop of Jamaica, he (Mr. Ellis) considered it as affording the most conclusive and satisfactory testimony of the disposition of the inhabitants to promote the religious instruction of the slaves. He must take the liberty of again reading to the House the passage in that letter referred to by the hon. and learned gentleman. "The general result of our observations" (viz. the bishop's and Mr. Archdeacon Pope's, in their progress through the parishes) "has been a hearty desire on the part of proprietors generally, or their representatives, cheerfully to promote, as far as their limited means will allow, any measures which I have thought it my duty to suggest for the benefit of the church. Public meetings have been called in many parishes, and private subscriptions are entered into to promote the same desirable object."

The hon. and learned gentleman had been pleased to put upon the expression "for the benefit of the church," the very limited, and as it appeared to him, forced construction for the benefit of the church establishment, namely, of the clergy themselves. Now, if the hon. and learned gentleman would have gone on and read the sentence which almost immediately follows, in which the bishop says, "I have ample employment here for catechists, whenever young men, properly qualified, shall be sent to me; and they might exercise their ministry with great advantage in the way before alluded to, during their state of probation for holy orders"—it would have been evident to the House that the construction of the hon. and learned gentleman could not have been the true meaning of the bishop, for in what way would he have employment for catechists, except in the religious instruction of the negroes?

But what is the report of the bishop of. Barbadoes? In his despatch to lord Bathurst of October 7, he says: "I have the honour to inform your lordship, that, in visiting the several islands within my diocese, I was received throughout with every mark of public and private respect, accompanied with the assurance on the part of the respective legislatures and proprietors of their readiness to co-operate with me, to the utmost extent of their means, in the measures which I had the honour to propose."

But further, in confirmation of this testimony, there is a report lately published by the society for the conversion and religious instruction of the slaves in the West-India colonies, of which the bishop of London is president. After giving extracts from the correspondence of their chaplains in the West Indies, all of which bear most satisfactory testimony to the encouragement which they have received from the inhabitants, it is stated, that "the Society has been informed that there are seventeen places of worship now building in the diocese of Jamaica, at the expense of the inhabitants." He (Mr. Ellis) would appeal, then, to the candour of the House with what sort of justice could it be said of the legislature which had passed the bill of which he had just read some of the clauses to the House, as had been said by the hon. and learned gentleman, that they had done nothing, literally nothing, for the religious instruction of the slaves? With what sort of candour could the inhabitants of the colonies, in the face of the respectable testimony which he had quoted, be represented as they had been represented, and by no mean authority (Mr. Stephen),with "impiously shutting out the light of the gospel from the slaves," and "keeping in a cruel thraldom the minds as well as the bodies of their unfortunate victims;"* and this reproach be made one of the main grounds of an appeal to the electors throughout this country, urging them to refuse their suffrages to any person in any degree connected with the West-India Colonies, with the view of a fair consideration of this question in the ensuing parliament? He (Mr. Ellis) conceived, on the contrary, that the respectable testimony which he had quoted would leave no doubt in the minds of all candid and impartial ^* England enslaved by her own Slave Colonies, p. 89. persons, of the honest and sincere dispotion of the colonies to do all that could be expected from them, in co-operation with the government, on this most important point. And he would appeal to his hon. friend, the under-secretary for the colonial department, whether they had not, in point of fact, done all that the government had either required or expected?

The next measure, to which he was anxious to call the attention of the House, was one which had been much misunderstood and misrepresented, and which was also connected with a point on which the hon. and learned gentleman had laid much stress, viz. the bill for facilitating the manumission of slaves. By this bill, the securities formerly required are dispensed with, and persons having only a limited interest in their slaves, are enabled to manumit them by a summary process, as easily and effectually as if they possessed the property in fee.

The dispensing with the securities was not a matter of any great importance; they had never operated as an impediment; but the motive for requiring them had been misrepresented; and those gentlemen, at least, who had formerly made there a matter of reproach, ought not now to treat the abandonment of them as trivial and unimportant.

But the extension of the power of manumission to persons having only a limited interest, was a measure of far more importance. What might be the proportion which that class bears to those who possess an absolute property in their slaves, it might be difficult to state with precision; but, considering the great distress under which the West-India planters had long laboured, and the pecuniary obligations to which their properties must consequently have been subjected, in addition to all the usual reversionary claims created by family arrangements, there could be no doubt but that this class must bear a very much higher proportion to those who possess their property unincumbered and in fee, in Jamaica, than is the case in England; and there probably would be no exaggeration in stating them to constitute at least two-thirds of the proprietors of slaves.

Now all this class have, by this act, for the first time, been entitled to exercise the power of manumission; and when it is further considered, that even whilst that power was limited to persons having an absolute property in their slaves, the number of manumissions, as appears by the census of 1823, amounted to no less than to 4,000 in the three preceding years; and that since 1787, the number of free persons of colour has increased from 10,000 to 35,000, being now more than the amount of the whole white population of the island, it surely would not be unreasonable to assert, that, in consequence of the facilities afforded by this act, the progress of enfranchisement, by voluntary manumissions alone, would have become very considerable and very satisfactory. But this act also had been treated by the hon. and learned gentleman as altogether nugatory, because it does not give to the slave the power of compelling his master to manumit him.

If, ten years ago, any West-Indian had asserted, that the abolitionists had in view any measures for compelling the owners of slaves to manumit them, they would have been treated as foul calumniators; and, in point of fact, in a report of the African institution, published in 1815, such an assertion had been referred to for the purpose of being indignantly repelled, and the views of the abolitionists were thus explicitly and distinctly stated:

"They did not aim at an emancipation to be effected by insurrection in the West Indies, or to be ordained precipitately by positive law; but they never denied, and scrupled not to avow, that they did look forward to a future extinction of slavery in the colonies, to be accomplished by the same happy means which formerly put an end to it in England, namely, by a benign though insensible revolution in opinions and manners, by the encouragement of particular manumissions, and progressive melioration of the condition of the slaves, till it should slide insensibly into general freedom. They looked, in short, to an emancipation of which not the slaves but the masters should be the willing instruments."

It would be difficult to select words more clear and precise than are here used to lay down the principle, that the manumission of the slaves in our colonies ought to be the voluntary act of their masters. Now, if the author of that report, or those who constituted him their organ, had been then asked, what ought to be the first practical step for carrying into effect the principle thus laid down, what must have been their answer? We have their answer in the same report: "If it should be asked what cause in England most powerfully contributed to the dissolution of the degrading bondage of our ancestors, the answer clearly must be, the extreme favour shown to individual enfranchisement by the judges and laws." Let them, then, now say, whether the Assembly of Jamaica have not shewn favour to individual enfranchisements to the full extent of the principle laid down in their own report.

It was not known at what time, or on what grounds, the gentlemen who professed, in 1815, the views and principles contained in that report, had seen reason to abandon them. The first intimation of their having done so was not later than three years ago, when the hon. member for Weymouth proposed, that all childrea born after a certain period should be declared free.

Was it not, then, somewhat hard, and had not the West Indians some right to complain, that those same gentlemen should make it a matter of such severe reproach to the colonies, that they had acted upon principles which they themselves had so lately professed; that they should find such fault with a measure framed upon the very model which they themselves had held up for imitation, and which had even gone beyond that model by extending the power of manumission to persons having only a limited interest in their slaves,—a power which, with all "the extreme favour shewn by the judges and the laws," had never been given to the owners of slaves in England?

Without at present expressing any opinion how far the change which had taken place in the views of these gentlemen might or might not be justified, he (Mr. Ellis) could not but regret it. But still more did he regret the adoption by the government of the principle of compulsory manumission (as it had been termed) in their order in council. He thought that measure unsound in its principle, and likely to prove mischievous in its operations. And, as so much stress had been laid upon that measure by the hon. and learned gentleman, he must beg leave shortly to state his reason for that opinion.

The slave who might be desirous of purchasing his freedom, long as he looked up to his master as possessing the power to grant or to withhold his manumission, would feel it his interest to conciliate the good will of his master by his own good conduct. But, from the moment when he is invested with the power of compelling his master to manumit him, that motive is removed; and, as the period may approach when he will be enabled to exercise that privilege, his regard for the good will of his master, or even for his authority, will, to say the least, be very much and very inconveniently impaired. He cannot fail to be aware also, that his price will be estimated in proportion to his value to his master; that in proportion as he is industrious and well-behaved, the sum which he will have to pay for his freedom will be enhanced. In a word, he will feel that it is his interest to render himself as worthless to his master as he can contrive to be with impunity.

On the other hand, if the master should apprehend any inconvenience from the loss of his slave, or for any motive be reluctant to manumit him (and otherwise the regulation giving the compulsory power is superfluous), he will feel it to be his interest always to prevent his slave from acquiring the means of purchasing his freedom—to keep him always poor; and he will be tempted to deprive him of many of those indulgences which the slaves now enjoy, and which the law cannot compel the master to grant. In a word, it would be difficult to devise a regulation more calculated to aggravate instead of mitigating the evils inherent in the relationship of master and slave; as to implant, in the breast of each, motives more at variance with that reciprocal good will which is essential to the improvement in the condition of the slaves which it is the object of the House to promote. For these reasons, for the sake of the slaves themselves, he lamented the determination of the government to enforce this regulation.

Being unwilling to weary the House, by going into any details which were not absolutely necessary, he would advert only to one other topic; but one which was of so much importance in itself, and had been so much dwelt upon by the hon. and learned gentleman, that he could not altogether pass it over—the state of the law with respect to the evidence of slaves. He lamented, as much as the hon. and learned gentleman, the rejection of the Slave-Evidence bill. He reprobated as strongly as that hon. and learned gentleman that monstrous incongruity in the law, which would take away the life of a slave on the evidence of a slave not given upon oath, but would reject the evidence of a slave upon oath, and, with whatever security for his sense of its obligation on his veracity, against a white man, in the case even of a common misdemeanor. Such a state of law could not be too speedily reformed.

What measures might be adopted by the Assembly for that purpose in the next session, he undoubtedly would not venture to anticipate, still less to offer any pledge. But, considering the progress which had been made in the feeling of the assembly since the previous session, when the bill then brought in was not even discussed, and knowing that the members who voted for the bill in the last session, though a minority in number, were persons of very great weight from their respectability, he could not but entertain a sanguine hope that their influence might produce a considerable change in the public opinion before the next session.

He further thought that some allowance was to be made for the peculiar moment at which the bill had been introduced—the session immediately preceding an expected dissolution; and that the House ought not to put out of their consideration the effect which might not unnaturally be produced by a violent popular clamour out of doors, on an assembly constituted like the assembly of Jamaica, which, with the exception of the representatives of the capital, was composed entirely of county members, on the eve of being sent back to their constituents and to popular elections.

But there was also another reason to hope, that not only this measure, but the other regulations which would be again submitted to the assemblies, in their next session, might be considered by them in a very different temper from that in which they had been hitherto treated. He meant in consequence of the declaration made, in a late debate, in that House, by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:—that the orders in council in Trinidad contained the whole plan of the government; that, after having obtained the adoption of those measures, it was their determination to pause—to pause till they should give full time for those measures to work—till the experiment should have been thus far fairly tried.

He trusted that this precise definition of the views of the government (and if he stated it incorrectly his right hon. friend would set him right), and the conviction which the colonial legislatures might consequently entertain, that, by the adoption of those recommendations, they might ensure to themselves the protection of the government against all attempts to force upon them any other more objectionable and dangerous measures, might induce them to overlook the inconveniences which they apprehended from the regulations proposed by the government, and, for the sake of that protection, to adopt them. He anxiously hoped that such might be the result of his right hon. friend's declaration, not merely as a West Indian, and with the view of setting at rest this painful and mischievous controversy, but with a sincere anxiety for the accomplishment of the object which the House and the country had in view.

He was not one of those who would uphold the power of resistance of the colonies. He fully admitted the irresistible power of this country—her power to crush her colonies, if she chose to make the sacrifice of her own interests, which would be involved in their ruin. They had no power of resistance by force; but they had a power which might defeat the object of this country—the power of inertness—the power of doing nothing but what they might be compelled to do by force. And if they should be driven to exercise that power sullenly and determinedly, this country, with all her omnipotence, might find herself much embarrassed in the execution of the measures which she might wish to carry into effect.

This was not his opinion, but that of far higher authority—the opinion of some of the most distinguished statesmen who had sat in either House of parliament; and among them of one whom he selected as a person to whom, perhaps more than to any other, the hon. and learned gentleman himself in his youth looked up with veneration, and whom even now, in the maturity of his own talents and reputation, he must remember with respect—Mr. Fox. Whatever might be the respect with which that hon. and learned gentleman regarded the opinions of Mr. Fox on any great political question, he could not but admit that there was none on which it was entitled to more weight than this. For it was Mr. Fox who, wielding the power of an administration which, during its short existence, constituted one of the strongest governments that this country had ever seen, at one blow abolished the Slave-trade, which not all the eloquence of Mr. Wilberforce, aided by the eloquence and the power of Mr. Pitt, during nearly twenty years of repeated appeals to the feelings of parliament and the country, had been able to accomplish; and yet, at the very moment when he was about to strike the blow, in the full consciousness of the power which he possessed, and endowed with an energy of character which was not likely to make him shrink from the exercise of that power, Mr. Fox, speaking of the enfranchisement of the slaves, thus expresses himself: "The idea of an act of parliament to emancipate the slaves in the West Indies, without the consent and concurrent feelings 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; and therefore I see no good in discussing that point."

Mr. Butterworth

spoke for some time; but the cries of "question," and the loud coughing which prevailed, prevented our hearing more than that the hon. member was of opinion that, although all persons must rejoice that a church establishment had been sent out to the West-Indies, it would prove of no use, unless missionary exertions were also encouraged.

Mr. Denman

rose amidst loud calls for a divison. He began by saying, that if it was the wish of the House that the debate should there stop, he would instantly sit down, but he hoped, nay, he entreated, that at the close of the labours of the session, when perhaps those hon. gentlemen whom he saw around him, would meet together for the last time for business this parliament—they would not separate, leaving this most important question unfinished; or suffer it to be disposed otherwise than as having received the seal of the most solemn and impartial investigation. It was to him no small satisfaction that so patient and attentive a hearing had been already given to the two gentlemen most closely connected with the colonies, and that they had been uninterrupted in the tenour of those arguments which their honour and their interests prompted them to advance as reasons why this resolution should not be adopted. The impress of impartiality, moderation and temper, which the debate would receive from that very circumstance, would, he was sure, have the best effects out of doors, as it would prove that all sides had had a hearing, and that whatever result the House came to, it was after a careful and patient investigation of all the bearings of the question. At that late hour of the night it was not his intention to follow the hon. gentlemen, those possessors of so much property in the West-Indies, who opposed this measure, very much into the details of their arguments. In two or three points, however, they seemed to have laid themselves open so much to observation, that he could not help adverting to them. If he understood the hon. member who spoke last, rightly, the main answer which he gave to the case made out for the slaves, consisted in an allusion to the enlarged facilities which the colonists of Jamaica afforded towards the manumission of their slaves. But, how old were these facilities? Did not the hon. member himself admit, that such facilities did not exist ten years ago, and, in fact that very circumstance proved the good which had been done by discussing the question. It was stated by the hon. member for Rochester, that in 1804, when a motion was made for a bill to admit slave-evidence, only one member of the House of Assembly, besides the introducer of the bill, was found to give it his support. But, what was the case now? Why, that in 1825, when the same measure was introduced, the House divided equally upon it; and, although numerically the measure was lost, yet that it received the support of all the talent in that Assembly. This showed how far the progress of emancipation might be stimulated by wise and vigorous measures. True it was, that this parliament had adopted the principle of not immediately following up the abolition of the Slave-trade by the emancipation of the slaves in the colonies; but when was the time to arrive that an end was to be put to the sufferings of our fellow creatures? Was it to be the work of ages; or were we to awaken them from the sleep of villanage to the dream of liberty, by the same slow steps, and by the same lengthy process, as was here displayed between the reigns of our Alfred and our James? Undoubtedly the most effectual emancipation was that which was brought about by moral agency, by that gradual spread of knowledge which raised all men to the level of rational beings, and prepared the mind of the slave for those enjoyments to which reasonable creatures have a claim. But surely it was not inconsistent with these means, that their progress should be stimulated. The hon. member had referred to the sentiments of the House of Commons in 1807, to the effect that they disclaimed violent measures, choosing rather that the masters themselves should be the willing instruments of conveying freedom to the slaves. True it was, that the House had expressed and recorded such a sentiment. But, when was that? Was it not twenty years ago? Had the human mind stood still all that time, or rather had not liberal ideas and enlightened views made progress in a tenfold proportion in that very period, as compared with any other period which had preceded. Mr. Fox himself, twenty years ago, was of opinion that the time was not yet come for the emancipation of slaves. During these twenty years, however, what changes had taken place amongst the colonists themselves. Let the House look to the altered sentiments of the House of Assembly in Jamaica, in the years 1804; and 1825. In the debates in 1807, the strongest hopes were expressed that the masters would co-operate in those measures for the emancipation of the slaves, which the legislature, in some degree, intrusted to their hands. Had the masters done so? Let that question be answered. He asserted that they had not: and if they had not—if the hopes of parliament had been baffled—if, instead of the masters co-operating towards such a result, they had unceasingly and obstinately opposed it, was it not time for that House to inquire whether the hands of government ought not to be strengthened, so that the masters might be compelled to conform to the express wish of the legislature? Take the change which was admitted to have taken place in the sentiments of the colonists. Would it be said that the resolutions of that House, from time to time, had had no effect in working this change? Where, then, was the doubt—where the difficulty? Was it denied that the condition of a slave was inconsistent with his being a subject of this free country, where liberty is the birth-right of every one of her children? Ask all the great men who had ever written or thought upon the subject. Ask those great luminaries in this and in other countries, to whose opinions more than ordinary attention was due. Mr. Sheridan, in a speech delivered in 1807, when a bill was brought in by a noble lord, the present duke or Northumberland, the express object of which was emancipation, said, that the subjects of the slave-trade and slavery could not be separated. "Could man," he asked, "be the property of man? He trusted that the planters would lead the way to emancipation; but he called upon the House not to indulge a sanguine hope of this." Twenty years had elapsed since that bill was rejected, and all the children since born, which by that bill would have been emancipated, have been born in slavery. It had been said in that House, and it had been inserted elsewhere, that even Mr. Wilberforce had been opposed to the principle of emancipation; but in the debate on that bill, Mr. Wilberforce denied that he was an enemy to emancipation. He would mention one more authority, Mr. Ward, now lord Dudley; who, on the 6th of March 1807, in a debate on the slave-trade, declared, that if he did not think that the abolition of that trade tended to the abolition of slavery, he should consider it as a disgraceful compromise with the planters. Even the resolutions of the House, in 1823, expressly recognized the claim of the slave to a participation of the civil rights enjoyed by other subjects. With respect to the church establishment in the West Indies, he could not help thinking that it was taken hold of by the colonists, and employed as an argument against further concession. When all was calm in the colonies, there existed the same repugnance to entertain the proposition as before, and the same pretended fear of danger. Then let the House look at the several cases of Mr. Smith and Mr. Shrewsbury, the slave trials laid on the table of the House, and the cruelties at Berbice. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by calling upon the House to mark that there were no arguments used in opposition to the present motion, which would not have been just as cogent, if applied to the original measure of the abolition of the slave-trade. He adverted to the establishment of episcopacy in some of the colonies, and argued from that step the best results to morality. He, however, censured an expression in the address of the House of Assembly at Jamaica, in which they stated their satisfaction that the king had appointed bishops for "the good of the lower orders." This would seem as if they thought reli- gion was only wanted by the lower orders, and that the masters hailed its assistance as adding another obligation to the fidelity and zeal of the slaves in their service. He then proceeded to comment upon the declaration of independence published by the people of H3yti, in which the rights of the slaves were openly recognized, but was prevented by the impatience of the House from proceeding further.

Mr. Secretary Canning

rose and addressed the House to the following effect:—

The hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, Sir, has brought the question which is now before the House, precisely to that point at which I am desirous of meeting it. The practical point to be decided is, whether the resolution, now proposed for its adoption, is likely to be useful, or otherwise, for the purposes for which I am bound to believe it is intended? That resolution contains, indeed, some propositions, to which, as abstract propositions, I have no difficulty (with certain modifications) in subscribing. But the questions for the House, on the present occasion, I take to be, not whether the resolution be abstractedly true, but whether the passing of any such resolution as this be either necessary or advisable, and if it be neither necessary nor advisable, whether it may not be rather detrimental than beneficial to the general object upon which the House has already expressed its determination.

In addressing myself to these questions, I must lay out of the account much—indeed the greater part—of the speech of one hon. and learned gentleman (Dr. Lushington), because it has been already determined by the House, and by the government, to proceed in this great measure, as far as possible, by means of conciliation and recommendation; but the whole of the hon. and learned gentleman's speech was directed rather to means of force and terror. That speech, therefore, I must pass by, as entirely dissonant from the whole tone and temper in which the discussion of this matter has been hitherto conducted; and especially from the laborious and temperate speech with which this resolution has been introduced for our deliberation.

I must assume, Sir, that the resolutions passed by this House, in May 1823, constitute the rule which parliament have agreed to take for their guidance; and I must also assume (the position which I have just stated not being contradicted), that the several measures which the government have founded on those resolutions are admitted to have been conceived in the spirit of those resolutions, and to have been framed in accordance with that spirit.

If, Sir, there be those who think that a different course than that which the House of Commons has pursued, ought to have been adopted; if there be those who are even disposed to go back to the year 1807, and to contend that the abolition of slavery in the West Indies ought to have been then enforced by the same act of parliament which abolished the trade in slaves, I have really only to say to them that they come too late into the field; that parliament has already taken its determination, and formed its decision on that subject. I must remind them, that parliament has already declared, in a way not to be misunderstood, that it would not enact the emancipation of the slaves in the West Indies; that it looks to that result only through a sober and gradual course of measures; that it will not be diverted from that course, except by a degree of resistance, amounting to contumacy, on the part of the West-Indian colonies, which it will not at present apprehend.

If there be those again who think that this important question, involving as it confessedly does, the lives, the interests, and the property of our fellow-subjects, is to be determined on the abstract proposition—"That man cannot be made the property of man,"—I take the liberty of relegating them to the schools; and of telling them that they do not deal with this grave and complicated matter as members of the British parliament, or as members of a society constituted, like that in which we live, of long-established interests, of conflicting claims to protection, of modifications and involutions of property not to be changed and simplified by a sudden effort, and of usages which, however undesirable, if the question were as to their new institution, are too in-veterately rooted to be destroyed at a single blow. I must tell them, Sir, that the practical adoption of their speculative notions would expose our West-India possessions to ravage and desolation, which, I think, those honourable gentlemen themselves would be as little satisfied to behold, as I hope they are prepared wilfully to produce them.

The learned civilian, referring to a former debate, has quoted a passage of a speech of mine, wherein I stated, "that the spirit of the British constitution was, in its principle, hostile to any modification of slavery." This reference compels me to set myself right with the House. The learned civilian has read the extract from the speech, but he has not given the context from which it is torn. Sir, the hon. member for Weymouth had, on that occasion, prefaced his proposed resolution with a declaration, that "the state of slavery was repugnant to the principles of the British constitution, and of the Christian religion." Did I subscribe to that proposition? Can the sentence quoted by the learned civilian be fairly understood in that sense? In order that the House should rightly understand what I did say, I will read that part of my speech of that day to which the quoted sentence belongs.

"The hon. gentleman (it is the hon. member for Weymouth to whom I am alluding) begins his resolution with a recital which I confess greatly embarrasses me: he says, that 'the state of slavery is repugnant to the principles of the British constitution, and of the Christian religion.' God forbid that he who ventures to object to this statement should therefore be held to assert a contradiction to it! I do not say, that the state of slavery is consonant to the principles of the British constitution; still less do I say, that the state of slavery is consonant to the principles of the Christian religion. But though I do not advance these propositions myself, nevertheless, I must say, that in my opinion the propositions of the hon. gentleman are not practically true. If the hon. gentleman means that the British constitution does not admit of slavery in that part of the British dominions where the constitution is in full play, undoubtedly his statement is true; but it makes nothing for his object. If, however, the hon. member is to be understood to maintain, that the British constitution has not tolerated for years, nay, more, for centuries, in the colonies, the existence of slavery—a state of society unknown in the mother country—that is a position which is altogether without foundation, and positively and practically untrue. In my opinion, when a proposition is submitted to this House, for the purpose of inducing the House to act upon it, care should be taken not to confound, as I think is done in this reso- lution, what is morally true with what is historically false. Undoubtedly, the spirit of the British constitution, is in its principle, hostile to any modification of slavery; but as, undoubtedly, the British parliament has for ages tolerated, sanctioned, protected, and even encouraged a system of colonial establishment of which it well knew slavery to be the foundation."

Here I do not say that slavery is sanctioned by the spirit of the Christian religion; and as little do I say, that it is sanctioned by the principles of the British constitution. But, although I do not advance any such proposition in opposition to that of the hon. member for Weymouth, still I do say, that his proposition is not practically true. If the hon. and learned gentleman meant to say, that the spirit of the British constitution is adverse to slavery, I admit the truth of his proposition; but it makes nothing for his argument. If he meant to say, that the British constitution has not for years tolerated slavery in its colonies, then it is quite evident that his proposition is positively and practically untrue. I contended then, as I contend now, that care ought to be taken, in touching questions of this nature, not to mingle and confound what is morally true with what is historically false. I admitted then, as I admit now, that the constitution of this country is adverse to the practice or principle of slavery; but, I affirmed then, and I now repeat the affirmation, that the parliament of this country has protected, fostered, and encouraged establishments, whose main support, it well knew, was derived from slavery. Guarded, then, Sir, as my declaration on this subject was at the beginning, guarded as it was at the end, I think the learned gentleman did not do quite fairly,—did not act, in respect to my speech, as he would have acted professionally in the citation of any document in a court of justice,—when he separated a single sentence, or rather member of a sentence, from the rest, and presented it to the House as a simple, direct, substantive, and unqualified proposition.

The learned gentleman seems, indeed, to think that he is at liberty to construe my speech of three years ago by comparison with something which passed the other day, in another place; of which, as stated by himself, I profess I do not see the practical bearing upon my argument (such as I have now shewn that argument to have been):—but of which I know absolutely nothing but what the assertion of the hon. and learned gentleman conveys to me. The distinction I now wish to press upon the attention of the House is the same as I have always endeavoured to maintain. I have before said, that theoretically true as it may be, that the spirit of slavery is repugnant to the spirit of the British constitution, yet this country, blessed though she has been with a free constitution herself, has encouraged in her colonies the practice of slavery, however alien to her own domestic institutions; and this, too, be it remembered, at a time when her councils were guided by men, the acknowledged and boasted friends of liberty. I will not stop to enter into a disquisition whether, at the time to which I refer, the duties of governments, and the rights of man, as man, were as fully understood, as in the age in which we have the happiness to live; whether the freedom of England had then attained that moral maturity which it now exhibits-Be that as it may, the simple fact is, that this country, notwithstanding her free constitution, did found and maintain, nay, more, did foster and prescribe a system, of which, not only was slavery an ingredient, but which required an annual influx of the black Stygian stream of slavery for its nutriment and sustentation.

But there was another part of the proposition put forth by the hon. member for Weymouth, on the occasion to which the learned civilian has alluded, viz.—that the state of slavery is repugnant to the principles of the Christian religion. To this, Sir, I objected, not, certainly, meaning thereby to degrade the Christian religion by the imputation that it was tolerant of slavery; but meaning to free this country from the necessity which would result from the adoption of the hon. gentleman's doctrine—the necessity, of proceeding without pause or hesitation, not merely to the immediate modification and gradual abolition of slavery in the colonies, but to its instant and total extirpation. What I meant to deny in the hon. member's proposition was, that the Christian religion and slavery could not be in existence together. I said that the reverse is the fact;—that they have co-existed from the very dawn of Christianity up to the present day-Neither, therefore, am I forced to admit that it is a principle of the Christian religion to sanction slavery. The course of the Christian religion has always been to adapt itself to the circumstances of the place and time in which it was seeking to make a progress; to accommodate itself to all stations of life, to all varieties of acting or of suffering; restraining the high, exalting the lowly, by precepts applicable to all diversities of situation; and alike contributing to the happiness of roan, and providing for his welfare, whether connected with his highest destinies, or descending with him to his lowest degradation,—whether mounting the throne of the Caesars, or comforting the captive in his cell.

But while Christianity has thus blessed and improved mankind, its operation has not been direct, precipitate, or violent. It has invaded no existing right or relations—it has disturbed no established modes of government or law. It has rendered and recommended obedience to temporal power, even where that power was exercised with no light hand, and administered through no mild or uncorrupted institutions. While the doctrines of Christianity were preaching in the streets of Rome,—"servi cruciantur" continued to be the ordinary form of process in the Forum, not for the punishment of the slave who had been convicted of a crime, but for extracting evidence from one produced as a witness.

Then, Sir, it is not true, that the Christian religion prescribes the extinction of slavery, with unsparing, uncompromising, indiscriminating haste. It is not true that Christianity ordains the extirpation of this great moral evil by other means than those which are consonant with the just spirit of the British constitution,—means of equity and good faith, as well as of well-understood humanity; measures moderate in their character, and progressive in their operation.

Is there any thing, then, Sir, in what I have laid down to inculpate the spirit of Christianity or the principles of the British constitution? If the British government, and the British parliament, have for a long series of years fostered that system upon which we all now look with abhorrence, what is the fair inference? Is it that we are to continue to foster and cherish it still?—No, Sir; that is not what I maintain: but I do maintain that we, having all concurred in the guilt of rearing and fostering the evil, are not to turn round upon the planters, and say, "you alone shall suffer all the penalty—we determine to get rid of this moral pestilence, which infects our character as much as yours, which we have as much contributed to propagate as you; but you, as spotted lepers, shall be banished from our society, and cast to utter ruin, to expiate our common crime."

Sir, I propose that we proceed with more deliberate counsel, and a more even hand. The House has already resolved so to proceed; and the question for decision, therefore, this night is, whether the resolution now offered for adoption is conceived in that even spirit, and bears the stamp of that temperate deliberation?

In order to decide this question, let us look where we now stand. The resolutions of May 1823 form the ground upon which we have hitherto proceeded:—is there, then, reason to believe that the government have acted upon those resolutions otherwise than in the most perfect sincerity? and has not the government avowed their determination, if the colonies should evince a contumacious resistance, to call upon parliament for aid?

If we have acted with sincerity, on the views sanctioned by parliament, and if we have not departed from the declaration of our determination to come to parliament for aid, if necessary,—wherefore now adopt a resolution, which, if it is not necessary for the furtherance of the views of government, must of necessity perplex them? We have already had, in the course of the session, two motions connected with this subject. Upon one of them, that relating to certain trials of slaves in the West Indies, I moved an amendment, expressive of the disgust naturally felt at some of the scenes brought under the notice of the House on that occasion; and declaring that we saw in those scenes only greater reason to adhere to the resolutions of 1823. If, therefore, the resolution proposed to us this night were no more than a renewal of our former declarations, it would amount to nothing—it would be powerless, it would be useless.

But it is no such thing. Let us examine what it is. In the first place, it expresses regret at the proceedings of the West-Indian legislatures. To this part of it I can have no objection, further than that it would be a waste of time to record over again what we have already recorded. But the second part of the resolution pledges the House to follow up this declaration with measures, not defined, in the ensuing session. To that part I have a decided objection. I think that to pledge ourselves to such a declaration would be productive of positive mischief.

I, Sir, do not despair, that in the course of the six or eight months which may intervene between the present and ensuing session, the West-Indian legislatures may adopt measures in the spirit of the recommendations sent out to them. I think their disposition to do this would be weakened by a pledge of the nature proposed. They would argue, that we knew not our own minds; that, dissatisfied with the course which we had already taken, we now stood pledged to resort to some other undefined mode of legislation; that whatever might have been, up to this period, the views of government, the House of Commons had stepped in and changed them. In this way would the Jamaica legislature have a right to argue. Would it, then, Sir, be prudent to abandon at once expectations which the West-Indian legislatures will not be so absurd and impolitic (to use no harsher epithet) as to disappoint, by signifying to them that we are not satisfied with our own course, and warning them thereby to wait and see what further steps we may be disposed to take, on another plan and in a different direction?

An honourable friend of mine, Sir (Mr. C. Ellis), who has done himself so much credit by his speech to-night, has asked me, whether he is to understand the order in council respecting Trinidad as comprising the whole of the system of the government? My answer is, that so far as the resolutions of this House prescribe to government the course to be pursued, so far the order in council in question does comprise the intentions of government. If the colonial legislatures act bona fide up to the spirit of that order, with a manifest desire not merely To keep the word of promise to the ear, And break it to the hope; not by evasive or illusory enactments, but with a full and fair intention to carry substantially into effect the meliorations recommended to them, I am convinced, that the views of parliament will be accomplished. It is to the spirit of the proceedings of the West-Indian legislatures that we shall look; and the government, and I believe the parliament, are disposed to look to it with confidence and candour.

My hon. friend has particularly adverted to the clause for compulsory manumission of slaves. It is undoubtedly the main clause of the whole. It is the only one that is directly operative. All the rest go to mitigate, to improve, to regulate the system of slavery; to render it more tolerable in its existence, and to prepare its gradual decay. This clause is the way out of that system, the opening by which slavery itself may escape, gradually, and, as it were, imperceptibly, without the shock of a convulsion.

The great difference between the plans' of his majesty's ministers and those of the hon. gentlemen who are desirous of a more rapid progress is this, that those hon. gentlemen would risk great dangers, would risk even the frustration of their own object, for the hope of arriving at it immediately; whereas we would rather postpone a little the attainment of the object, in order that we may arrive at it with a greater assurance of safety.

I agree, Sir, in many particulars, with an hon. gentleman opposite, who has spoken with so much good sense; but I differ from him widely on the subject of compensation. I think nothing could be more monstrous than to admit a claim of compensation into a system of measures which are purely measures of amelioration; and which all who look upon the moral improvement of the slave as beneficial to the interests of the master, must acknowledge to be calculated to create eventually an advance instead of a deterioration in the value of the master's property in his slaves. I admit, at the same time, that the principle of compulsory manumission, being one of force (though qualified so as to guard against danger), there it is that the principle of compensation properly finds its place. The price which the manumitted slave will have to pay to his owner, augmenting, as it naturally must do, in proportion to the improved value of the slave, is the medium through which that just compensation will be administered.

Sir, although the discussion upon this question has been long, and although many foreign topics have been introduced into it, I am not aware of any other practical points, beside those I have already touched upon, which call for answer or explanation. Nor would it be consistent with what I have said of the inopportuneness of these repeated discussions, to protract that of to-night beyond the limits of the question on which the vote of the House is to be taken.

I have endeavoured to show, that while I willingly admit that the dictates of humanity, the principles of the Christian religion, and the spirit of the British constitution repudiate slavery, there is nothing in that admission which calls upon us to abolish the system, however odious, with a violence and precipitancy, the effect of which would be to bring down ruin upon a large class of our fellow-subjects, and to exchange the evils of slavery for those of anarchy and bloodshed. I hope that I have also shown that the government is sincere in its endeavour to carry into effect the wishes of parliament, wisely, temperately, soberly, in the spirit in which those wishes were conceived. But I also hope that I shall have made it clear to those whose interests are more directly involved in this great question, and whose agency is necessary to the satisfactory solution of it, that what we profess to do with temperance and soberness, we are, at the same time, determined to do, or to see done. I trust it will be understood, that it is only because we do not like any thing which has the appearance of menace, that I have not to-night distinctly repeated the declaration, that if, contrary to our hope, we should be met by the colonies with contumacious opposition, we shall come to parliament for aid; an aid which parliament will not hesitate in granting, to carry into execution its own wholesome and holy determination.

Sir T. Ackland

rose, and said he wished to leave the question entirely in the hands of government, and would therefore move, as an amendment, the previous question.

Mr. Canning,

as we understood, said he had intended to conclude with making that amendment himself.

Mr. Brougham

then replied. He maintained, that slavery had existed, not in accordance with the principles of the British constitution, but in spite of them. So it was with respect to the Christian religion. Could any man deny that it was most unchristian to hold a fellow being in slavery—to treat him as a brute beast, and, at the instigation of capricious cruelty or sordid avarice, to tear the very flesh from his bones? Such a system was essentially repugnant to Christianity, and could, by no process of sophistry, be reconciled with its mild and benignant spirit. The right hon. Secretary had represented the resolution as imposing the obligation on the House to proceed absolutely next session with coercive measures against the colonies. The resolution, however, only bound the House to take the question again into consideration next session, if nothing should have occurred intermediately to obviate the necessity. As to the argument, that harm would result from the rejection of the resolution; let the responsibility rest on the heads of those who voted against them.

The House then divided: For Mr. Brougham's resolution 38; Against it 100: Majority 62.