SLAVE COMPENSATION. (Hansard, 16 December 1837)

§ Mr. Hume
wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain what was the purport of that clause.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said that the Slave Compensation Fund was provided for partly in money and partly in stock. Before the Bill passed certain claims were paid in money; but there was now a surplus of stock and a deficiency of money; this clause was to allow stock to be sold out.

§ Mr. Hume
said, that some statement should have been laid before the House with respect to the amount of the money paid.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that, under the provisions of the Slave Compensation Act, no accounts could be laid before the House without an order from the Committee, countersigned by the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Baines
wished to ask his right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what proportion of the money voted for the liberation of the slaves had been already distributed; and, whether any inquiry had been instituted as to the conduct of the masters towards their apprentices, and if it should be found that they had been treated with cruelty, whether it was the intention of Government to withhold the remainder of that sum?

Mr. Aglionby
only rose for the purpose of stating that the greatest interest was felt in his part of the country on this subject. He had received many letters, urging that the attention of the House ought to be called to it, and he hoped, ere long the House would take the matter up, and see that justice was done.

§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the question which the hon. Gentleman had put to him was, whether they could withhold, or had withhold, any part of the money? His answer was, they had no power of withholding it. By law it belonged to the parties to whom it was adjudicated; and no less authority than an Act of Parliament could take it away from those individuals.

§ Mr. Baines
begged to confirm what his hon. Friend, the Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) had stated, as to the strong impression that existed in the country on this subject. It had been stated that cruel injustice had been done to the negro apprentices, and it would become a matter of serious consideration how far the subject should be brought before Parliament. Though he could not entirely concur in all the proceedings the Government had taken (who undoubtedly were entitled to the credit of having removed the stigma of negro slavery), and doubted the propriety of coming to the decision of asking for a termination of the negro apprenticeship on the 1st of August next, yet he thought that the apprentices were entitled to the best consideration of Parliament, and that no information ought to be withheld from the House that would satisfy the minds of hon. Members. After the enormous sum that had been paid for the liberation of the negroes they ought to see that that part of the contract which belonged 1185 to the planters had been fairly and conscieutiously fulfilled; and if it had not, there would be an impression in the country generally that great injustice had been done towards the people of this country and the negro population. He hoped the Government would in some way or other take care that the planters fulfilled their part of the contract, and that the money was not paid to those who violated their contract, contrary to every principle of justice and humanity.

§ Mr. Hume
thought, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds, was bound both in justice to the public who had paid, and in justice to the planters who had received, so large a sum of money by way of compensation, to bring forward in a specific shape the charges which he had just made against the good faith and humanity of the planters. Why not bring them at once under the notice of Parliament? He saw from a report which had appeared in the public journals, that a short time since there had been held in London a public meeting on this subject, which was attended by no less than nine Members of Parliament. Why had none of them brought before the House the cruelties which were at that meeting alleged to have been perpetrated by the masters upon their apprentices? If they did not like to come forward themselves, let them place their papers in his hands, and he would bring the whole subject under the notice of the House. That was the right and proper course to pursue; and it was neither just nor proper for hon. Members to be constantly making charges against the planters which the planters were not present to meet, and for which their defamers produced no proofs.

§ Mr. Baines
I do not understand what my hon. Friend means.

§ Mr. Hume
Then I will tell my hon. Friend, the Member for Leeds, what I mean. It is alleged that the acts of the planters towards the negro apprentices are such, that the only way of relieving the latter from the oppression of the former is by making the apprenticeship, which was not to terminate till 1840, terminate in August, 1838. Now, if my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, or if any other hon. Member, is cognizant of any individual act of cruelty, if he really believes in the truth of the statements so directly impugning the conduct of the planters to their apprentices, it is his bounden duty to bring them under the notice of the House. He 1186 is also bound to state the names of the particular planters whom he alleges to be guilty of these cruelties, in order that the censure of Parliament and the public, may fall upon those who are really guilty, and may not be directed against those who are innocent. That is the only way in which justice can be done to both sides in this matter.

§ Mr. Baines
waited to see if the matter would be undertaken by some person of more weight and influence in the House than himself. If no other hon. Member did he would take up the subject. He thought that justice should be done as well to the planter as to the negro. He did not wish to traduce the one without establishing the charges he had brought against him, nor did he wish that the other should be oppressed without showing him that Parliament was disposed to support and maintain his right.