{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_10386/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_10386","id":"gutenberg_10386","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/10386","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - British","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Enslaved persons -- Emancipation -- West Indies, British","Slavery","Slavery -- West Indies, British"],"text":"THOUGHTS ON THE NECESSITY OF IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF THE SLAVES IN\nTHE BRITISH COLONIES, WITH A VIEW TO THEIR ULTIMATE EMANCIPATION; AND ON\nTHE PRACTICABILITY, THE SAFETY, AND THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LATTER\nMEASURE.\n\n\nBY T. CLARKSON, ESQ.\n\n\n1823.\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe following sheets first appeared in a periodical work called The\nInquirer. They are now republished without undergoing any substantial\nalteration. The author however thinks it due to himself to state, that\n_he would have materially qualified those parts of his essay which speak\nof the improved Condition of the Slaves in the West Indies since the\nabolition_, had he then been acquainted with the recent evidence\nobtained upon that subject. His present conviction certainly is, that he\nhas overrated that improvement, and that in point of fact Negro Slavery\nis, in its main and leading feature, the same system which it was when\nthe Abolition controversy first commenced.\n\nIt is possible there may be some, who, having glanced over the Title\nPage of this little work, may be startled at the word _Emancipation_. I\nwish to inform such, that Mr. Dundas, afterwards Lord Melville, an acute\nMan, and a Friend to the Planters, _proposed this very measure to\nParliament_ in the year 1792. We see, then, that the word Emancipation\ncannot be charged with _Novelty_. It contains now _no new ideas_. It\ncontains now nothing but what has been _thought practicable_, and _even\ndesirable to be accomplished_. The Emancipation which I desire is such\nan Emancipation only, as I firmly believe to be compatible not only with\nthe due subordination and happiness of the labourer, but with the\npermanent interests of his employer.\n\nI wish also to say, in case any thing like an undue warmth of feeling on\nmy part should be discovered in the course of the work, that I had no\nintention of being warm against the West Indians as a body. I know that\nthere are many estimable men among them living in England, who deserve\nevery desirable praise for having sent over instructions to their Agents\nin the West Indies from time to time in behalf of their wretched Slaves.\nAnd yet, alas! even these, _the Masters themselves, have not had\ninfluence enough to secure the fulfilment of their own instructions upon\ntheir own estates_; nor will they, _so long as the present system\ncontinues_. They will never be able to carry their meritorious designs\ninto effect against _Prejudice, Law, and Custom_. If this be not so, how\nhappens it that you cannot see the Slaves, belonging to such estimable\nmen, _without marks of the whip upon their backs_? The truth is, that\n_so long as overseers, drivers, and others, are entrusted with the use\nof arbitrary power_, and _so long as Negro-evidence is invalid against\nthe white oppressor_, and _so long as human nature continues to be what\nit is_, _no order_ from the Master for the better personal treatment of\nthe Slave _will or can be obeyed_. It is against the _system_ then, and\nnot against the West Indians as a body, that I am warm, should I be\nfound so unintentionally, in the present work.\n\nOne word or two now on another part of the subject. A great noise will\nbe made, no doubt, when the question of Emancipation comes to be\nagitated, about _the immense property at stake_, I mean the property of\nthe Planters;--and others connected with them. This is all well. Their\ninterests ought undoubtedly to be attended to. But I hope and trust,\nthat, if property is to be attended to _on one side_ of the question, it\nwill be equally attended to _on the other_. This is but common justice.\nIf you put into one scale _the gold_ and _jewels_ of the Planters, you\nare bound to put into the other _the liberty_ of 800,000 of the African\nrace; for every man's liberty is _his own property_ by the laws of\n_Nature_, _Reason_, _Justice_, and _Religion_? and, if it be not so with\nour West Indian Slaves, it _is only because_ they have been, and\ncontinue to be, _deprived_ of it _by force_. And here let us consider\nfor a moment which of these two different sorts of property is of the\ngreatest value. Let us suppose an English gentleman to be seized by\nruffians on the banks of the Thames (and why not a _gentleman_ when\nAfrican _princes_ have been so served?) and hurried away to a land (and\nAlgiers is such a land, for instance), where white persons are held as\nSlaves. Now this gentleman has not been used to severe labour (neither\nhas the African in his own country); and being therefore unable, though\nhe does his best, to please his master, he is roused to further exertion\n_by the whip_. Perhaps he takes this treatment indignantly. This only\nsecures him _a severer punishment_. I say nothing of his being badly\nfed, or lodged, or clothed. If he should have a wife and daughters with\nhim, how much more cruel would be his fate! to see the tender skins of\nthese lacerated by the whip! to see them torn from him, with a\nknowledge, that they are going to be compelled to submit to the lust of\nan overseer! _and no redress_. \"How long,\" says he, \"is this frightful\nsystem, which tears my body in pieces and excruciates my soul, which\nkills me by inches, and which involves my family in unspeakable misery\nand unmerited disgrace, to continue?\"--\"For _ever_,\" replies a voice\nSuddenly: \"_for ever_, as relates to your _own_ life, and the life _of\nyour wife and daughters_, and that of _all their posterity_,\" Now would\nnot this gentleman give _all that he had left behind him_ in England,\nand _all that he had in the world besides_, and _all that he had in\nprospect and expectancy_, to get out of this wretched state, though he\nforesaw that on his return to his own country he would be obliged to beg\nhis bread for the remainder of his life? I am sure he would. I am sure\nhe would _instantly_ prefer his _liberty to his gold_. There would not\nbe _the hesitation of a moment_ as to the choice he would make. I hope,\nthen, that if _the argument of property_ should he urged on _one side_\nof the question, the _argument of property (liberty) will not be\noverlooked on the other_, but that they will be fairly weighed, the one\nagainst the other, and that an allowance will be made as the scale shall\npreponderate on either side.\n\n\n\n\nTHOUGHTS, &c.\n\n\nI know of no subject, where humanity and justice, as well as public and\nprivate interest, would be more intimately united than in that, which\nshould recommend a mitigation of the slavery, with a view afterwards to\nthe emancipation of the Negroes, wherever such may be held in bondage.\nThis subject was taken up for consideration, so early as when the\nAbolition of the slave trade was first practically thought of, and by\nthe very persons who first publicly embarked in that cause in England;\nbut it was at length abandoned by them, not on the ground _that Slavery\nwas less cruel, or wicked, or impolitic, than the slave trade_, but for\nother reasons. In the first place there were not at that time so many\nobstacles in the way of the Abolition, as of the Emancipation of the\nNegroes. In the second place Abolition could be effected immediately,\nand with but comparatively little loss, and no danger. Emancipation, on\nthe other hand, appeared to be rather a work of time. It was beset too\nwith many difficulties, which required deep consideration, and which, if\nnot treated with great caution and prudence, threatened the most\nalarming results. In the third place, it was supposed, that, by\neffecting the abolition of the slave trade, the axe would be laid to the\nroot of the whole evil; so that by cutting off the more vital part of\nit, the other would gradually die away:--for what was more reasonable\nthan to suppose, that, when masters could no longer obtain Slaves from\nAfrica or elsewhere, they would be compelled individually, by a sort of\ninevitable necessity, or a fear of consequences, or by a sense of their\nown interest, _to take better care of those whom they might then have in\ntheir possession_? What was more reasonable to suppose, than that the\ndifferent legislatures themselves, moved also by the same necessity,\n_would immediately interfere_, without even the loss of a day, _and so\nalter and amend the laws_ relative to the treatment of Slaves, as to\nenforce that as a public duty, which it would be thus the private\ninterest of individuals to perform? Was it not also reasonable to\nsuppose that a system of better treatment, thus begun by individuals,\nand enforced directly afterwards by law, would produce more willing as\nwell as more able and valuable labourers than before; and that this\neffect, when once visible, would again lead both masters and legislators\non the score of interest to treat their slaves still more like men; nay,\nat length to give them even privileges; and thus to elevate their\ncondition by degrees, till at length it would be no difficult task, and\nno mighty transition, _to pass them_ to that most advantageous situation\nto both parties, _the rank of Free Men?_\n\nThese were the three effects, which the simple measure of the abolition\nof the slave trade was expected to produce by those, who first espoused\nit, by Mr. Granville Sharp, and those who formed the London committee;\nand by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Wilberforce, and others of\nillustrious name, who brought the subject before Parliament. The\nquestion then is, how have these fond expectations been realized? or how\nmany and which of these desirable effects have been produced? I may\nanswer perhaps with truth, that in our own Islands, where the law of the\nabolition is not so easily evaded, or where there is less chance of\nobtaining new slaves, than in some other parts, there has been already,\nthat is, since the abolition of the slave trade, a somewhat _better\nindividual_ treatment of the slaves than before. A certain care has been\ntaken of them. The plough has been introduced to ease their labour.\nIndulgences have been given to pregnant women both before and after\ntheir delivery; premiums have been offered for the rearing of infants to\na certain age; religious instruction has been allowed to many. But when\nI mention these instances of improvement, I must be careful to\ndistinguish what I mean;--I do not intend to say, that there were no\ninstances of humane treatment of the slaves before the abolition of the\nslave trade. I know, on the other hand, that there were; I know that\nthere were planters, who introduced the plough upon their estates, and\nwho much to their Honour granted similar indulgences, premiums, and\npermissions to those now mentioned, previously to this great event. All\nthen that I mean to say is this, that, independently of the common\nprogress of humanity and liberal opinion, the circumstance of not being\nable to get new slaves as formerly, has had its influence upon some of\nour planters; that it has made some of them think more; that it has put\nsome of them more upon their guard; and that there are therefore upon\nthe whole, more instances of good treatment of slaves by individuals in\nour Islands (though far from being as numerous as they ought to be) than\nat any former period.\n\nBut, alas! though the abolition of the slave trade may have produced a\nsomewhat better individual treatment of the slaves, and this also to a\nsomewhat greater extent than formerly, _not one of the other effects_,\nso anxiously looked for, has been realized. The condition of the slaves\nhas not yet been improved by _law_. It is a remarkable, and indeed\nalmost an incredible fact, _that no one effort has been made_ by the\nlegislative bodies in our Islands with _the real_ intention of meeting\nthe new, the great, and the extraordinary event of the abolition of the\nslave trade. While indeed this measure was under discussion by the\nBritish Parliament, an attempt was made in several of our Islands to\nalter the old laws with a view, as it was then pretended, of providing\nbetter for the wants and personal protection of the slaves; but it was\nafterwards discovered, that the promoters of this alteration never meant\nto carry it into effect. It was intended, by making a show of these\nlaws, _to deceive the people of England_, and _thus to prevent them from\nfollowing up the great question of the abolition_. Mr. Clappeson, one of\nthe evidences examined by the House of Commons, was in Jamaica, when the\nAssembly passed their famous consolidated laws, and he told the House,\nthat \"he had often heard from people there, that it was passed because\nof the stir in England about the slave trade;\" and he added, \"that\nslaves continued to be as ill treated there _since the passing of that\nact as before_.\" Mr. Cook, another of the evidences examined, was long\nresident in the same island, and, \"though he lived there also _since the\npassing of the_ act, _he knew of no legal protection_, which slaves had\nagainst injuries from their masters.\" Mr. Dalrymple was examined to the\nsame point for Grenada. He was there in 1788, when the Act for that\nisland was passed also, called \"An Act for the better Protection and\npromoting the Increase and Population of Slaves.\" He told the House,\nthat, \"while he resided there, the proposal in the British Parliament\nfor the abolition of the slave trade was a matter of general discussion,\nand that he believed, that this was a principal reason for passing it.\nHe was of opinion, however, that this Act would prove ineffectual,\nbecause, as Negro evidence was not to be admitted, those, who chose to\nabuse their slaves, might still do it with impunity; and people, who\nlived on terms of intimacy, would dislike the idea of becoming spies and\ninformers against each other.\" We have the same account of the\nameliorating Act of Dominica. \"This Act,\" says Governor Prevost,\n\"appears to have been considered from the day it was passed until this\nhour as _a political measure to avert the interference of the mother\ncountry in the management of the slaves_.\" We, are informed also on the\nsame authority, that the clauses of this Act, which had given a promise\nof better days, \"_had been wholly neglected_.\" In short, the Acts passed\nin our different Islands for the pretended purpose of bettering the\ncondition of the slaves have been all of them most shamefully\nneglected; and they remain only a dead letter; or they are as much a\nnullity, as if they had never existed, at the present day.\n\nAnd as our planters have done nothing yet effectively by _law_ for\nameliorating the condition of their slaves, so they have done nothing or\nworse than nothing in the case of their _emancipation_. In the year 1815\nMr. Wilberforce gave notice in the House of Commons of his intention to\nintroduce there a bill for the registration of slaves in the British\ncolonies. In the following year an insurrection broke out among some\nslaves in Barbadoes. Now, though this insurrection originated, as there\nwas then reason to believe, in local or peculiar circumstances, or in\ncircumstances which had often produced insurrections before, the\nplanters chose to attribute it to the Registry Bill now mentioned. They\ngave out also, that the slaves in Jamaica and in the other islands had\nimbibed a notion, that this Bill was to lead to _their emancipation_;\nthat, while this notion existed, their minds would be in an unsettled\nstate; and therefore that it was necessary that _it should be done\naway_. Accordingly on the 19th day of June 1816, they moved and procured\nan address from the Commons to the Prince Regent, the substance of which\nwas (as relates to this particular) that \"His Royal Highness would be\npleased to order all the governors of the West India islands to\nproclaim, in the most public manner, His Royal Highness's concern and\nsurprise at the false and mischievous opinion, which appeared to have\nprevailed in some of the British colonies,--that either His Royal\nHighness or the British Parliament had sent out orders for _the\nemancipation_ of the Negroes; and to direct the most effectual methods\nto be adopted for discountenancing _these unfounded and dangerous\nimpressions_.\" Here then we have a proof \"that in the month of June 1816\nthe planters _had no notion of altering the condition of their\nNegroes_.\" It is also evident, that they have entertained _no such\nnotion since_; for emancipation implies a _preparation_ of the persons\nwho are to be the subjects of so great a change. It implies a previous\nalteration of treatment for the better, and a previous alteration of\ncustoms and even of circumstances, no one of which can however be really\nand truly effected without _a previous change of the laws_. In fact, a\nprogressively better treatment _by law_ must have been settled as a\npreparatory and absolutely necessary work, had _emancipation been\nintended_. But as we have never heard of the introduction of any new\nlaws to this effect, or with a view of producing this effect, in any of\nour colonies, we have an evidence, almost as clear as the sun at\nnoonday, that our planters have no notion of altering the condition of\ntheir Negroes, though fifteen years have elapsed since the abolition of\nthe slave trade.  But if it be true that the abolition of the slave\ntrade has not produced all the effects, which the abolitionists\nanticipated or intended, it would appear to be their duty, unless\ninsurmountable obstacles present themselves, _to resume their labours:_\nfor though there may be upon the whole, as I have admitted, a somewhat\nbetter _individual_ treatment of the slaves by their masters, arising\nout of an increased prudence in same, which has been occasioned by\nstopping the importations, yet it is true, that not only many of the\nformer continue to be ill-treated by the latter, but that _all may be so\nill-treated_, if the _latter be so disposed_. They may be ill-fed,\nhard-worked, ill-used, and wantonly and barbarously punished. They may\nbe tortured, nay even deliberately and intentionally killed without the\nmeans of redress, or the punishment of the aggressor, so long as the\nevidence of a Negro is not valid against a white man. If a white master\nonly take care, that no other white man sees him commit an atrocity of\nthe kind mentioned, he is safe from the cognizance of the law. He may\ncommit such atrocity in the sight of a thousand black spectators, and no\nharm will happen to him from it. In fact, the slaves in our Islands have\n_no more real protection or redress from law_, than when _the\nAbolitionists first took up the question of the slave trade_. It is\nevident therefore, that the latter have still one-half of their work to\nperform, and that it is their duty to perform it. If they were ever\ninfluenced by any good motives, whether of humanity, justice, or\nreligion, to undertake the cause of the Negroes, they must even now be\ninfluenced by the same motives to continue it. If any of those disorders\nstill exist, which it was their intention to cure, they cannot (if these\nare curable) retire from the course and say--there is now no further\nneed of our interference.\n\nThe first step then to be taken by the Abolitionists is to attempt to\nintroduce an _entire new code of laws_ into our colonies. The treatment\nof the Negroes there must no longer be made to depend upon _the presumed\neffects_ of the abolition of the slave trade. Indeed there were persons\nwell acquainted with Colonial concerns, who called the abolition _but a\nhalf measure_ at the time when it was first publicly talked of. They\nwere sure, that it would never _of itself_ answer the end proposed. Mr.\nSteele also confessed in his letter to Dr. Dickson[1] (of both of whom\nmore by and by), that \"the abolition of the stave trade would _be\nuseless_, unless at the same time the infamous laws, which he had\npointed out, _were repealed_.\" Neither must the treatment of the Negroes\nbe made to depend upon what may be called _contingent humanity_. We now\nleave in this country neither the horse, nor the ass, nor oxen, nor\nsheep, to the contingent humanity even of _British bosoms_;--and shall\nwe leave those, whom we have proved to be _men_, to the contingent\nhumanity of a _slave colony_, where the eye is familiarized with cruel\nsights, and where we have seen a constant exposure to oppression without\nthe possibility of redress? No. The treatment of the Negroes must be\nmade to depend _upon law_; and unless this be done, we shall look in\nvain for any real amelioration of their condition. In the first place,\nall those old laws, which are repugnant to humanity and justice, must be\ndone away. There must also be new laws, positive, certain, easy of\nexecution, binding upon all, by means of which the Negroes in our\nislands shall have speedy and substantial redress in real cases of\nill-usage, whether by starvation, over-work, or acts of personal\nviolence, or otherwise. There must be new laws again more akin to the\nprinciple of _reward_ than of _punishment_, of _privilege_ than of\n_privation_, and which shall, have a tendency to raise or elevate their\ncondition, so as to fit them by degrees to sustain the rank of free men.\n\nBut if a new Code of Laws be indispensably necessary in our colonies in\norder to secure a better treatment to the slaves, to whom must we look\nfor it? I answer, that we must not look for it to the West Indian\nLegislatures. For, in the first place, judging of what they are likely\nto do from what they have already done, or rather from what they have\n_not_ done, we can have no reasonable expectation from that quarter. One\nhundred and fifty years have passed, during which long interval their\nlaws have been nearly stationary, or without any material improvement.\nIn the second place, the individuals composing these Legislatures,\nhaving been used to the exercise of unlimited power, would be unwilling\nto part with that portion of it, which would be necessary to secure the\nobject in view. In the third place, their prejudices against their\nslaves are too great to allow them to become either impartial or willing\nactors in the case. The term _slave_ being synonymous according to their\nestimation and usage with the term _brute_, they have fixed a stigma\nupon their Negroes, such as we, who live in Europe, could not have\nconceived, unless we had had irrefragable evidence upon the point. What\nevils has not this cruel association of terms produced? The West Indian\nmaster looks down upon his slave with disdain. He has besides a certain\nantipathy against him. He hates the sight of his features, and of his\ncolour; nay, he marks with distinctive opprobrium the very blood in his\nveins, attaching different names and more or less infamy to those who\nhave it in them, according to the quantity which they have of it in\nconsequence of their pedigree, or of their greater or less degree of\nconsanguinity with the whites. Hence the West Indian feels an\nunwillingness to elevate the condition of the Negro, or to do any thing\nfor him as a human being. I have no doubt, that this prejudice has been\none of the great causes why the improvement of our slave population _by\nlaw_ has been so long retarded, and that the same prejudice will\ncontinue to have a similar operation, so long as it shall continue to\nexist. Not that there are wanting men of humanity among our West Indian\nlegislators. Their humanity is discernible enough when it is to be\napplied to the _whites_; but such is the system of slavery, and the\ndegradation attached to this system, that their humanity seems to be\nlost or gone, when it is to be applied to the _blacks_. Not again that\nthere are wanting men of sense among the same body. They are shrewd and\nclever enough in the affairs of life, where they maintain an intercourse\nwith the _whites_; but in their intercourse with the _blacks_ their\nsense appears to be shrivelled and not of its ordinary size. Look at the\nlaws of their own making, as far as the Negroes are concerned, and they\nare a collection of any thing but--wisdom.\n\nIt appears then, that if a new code of laws is indispensably necessary\nin our Colonies in order to secure a better treatment of the slaves\nthere, we are not to look to the West Indian Legislatures for it. To\nwhom then are we to turn our eyes for help on this occasion? We answer,\nTo the British Parliament, the source of all legitimate power; to that\nParliament, _which has already heard and redressed in part the wrongs of\nAfrica_. The West Indian Legislatures must be called upon to send their\nrespective codes to this Parliament for revision. Here they will be well\nand impartially examined; some of the laws will be struck out, others\namended, and others added; and at length they will be returned to the\nColonies, means having been previously devised for their execution\nthere.\n\nBut here no doubt a considerable opposition would arise on the part of\nthe West India planters. These would consider any such interference by\nthe British Parliament as an invasion of their rights, and they would\ncry out accordingly. We remember that they set up a clamour when the\nabolition of the slave trade was first proposed. But what did Mr. Pitt\nsay to them in the House of Commons? \"I will now,\" said he, \"consider\nthe proposition, that on account of some patrimonial rights of the West\nIndians, the prohibition of the slave trade would be an invasion of\ntheir legal inheritance. This proposition implied, that Parliament had\nno right to stop the importations: but had this detestable traffic\nreceived such a sanction, as placed it more out of the jurisdiction of\nthe Legislature for ever after, than any other branch of our trade? But\nif the laws respecting the slave trade implied a contract for its\nperpetual continuance, the House could never regulate any other of the\nbranches of our national commerce. But _any contract_ for the promotion\nof this trade must, in his opinion, _have been void from the\nbeginning_; for if it was _an outrage upon justice_, and only another\nname for _fraud, robbery, and murder_, what _pledge_ could devolve upon\nthe Legislature to incur the obligation of becoming principals in the\ncommission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?\"\n\nThey set up again a similar clamour, when the Registry Bill before\nmentioned was discussed in Parliament, contending that the introduction\nof it there was an interference with their rights also: but we must not\nforget the reply which Mr. Canning made to them on that occasion. \"He\nhad known, (he said,) and there might again occur, instances of\nobstinacy in the colonial assemblies, which left the British Parliament\nno choice but direct interference. Such conduct might now call for such\nan exertion on the part of Parliament; but all that he pleaded for was,\nthat time should be granted, that it might be known if the colonial\nassemblies would take upon them to do what that House was pleased to\ndeclare should be done. The present address could not be misunderstood.\nIt told the colonial assemblies, You are safe for the present from the\ninterference of the British Parliament, on the belief, and on the\npromise made for you, that left to yourselves you will do what is\nrequired of you. To hold this language was sufficient. The Assemblies\nmight be left to infer the consequences of a refusal, and Parliament\nmight rest satisfied with the consciousness, that they held in their\nhands the means of accomplishing that which they had proposed.\" In a\nsubsequent discussion of the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Holland\nremarked, that \"in his opinion there had been more prejudice against\nthis Bill than the nature of the thing justified; but, whatever might be\nthe objection felt against it in the Colonies, it might be well for them\nto consider, that it would be _impossible for them to resist_, and that,\nif the thing was not done by them, _it would be done for them_.\" But on\nthis subject, that is, on the subject of colonial rights, I shall say\nmore in another place. It will be proper, however, to repeat here, and\nto insist upon it too, that there is no _effectual way_ of remedying the\nevil complained of, but by subjecting the colonial laws to the _revision\nof the Legislature of the mother country_; and perhaps I shall disarm\nsome of the opponents to this measure, and at any rate free myself from\nthe charge of a novel and wild proposition, when I inform them that Mr.\nLong, the celebrated historian and planter of Jamaica, and to whose\nauthority all West Indians look up, adopted the same idea. Writing on\nthe affairs of Jamaica, he says: \"The system[2] of Colonial government,\nand the imperfection of their several laws, are subjects, which never\nwere, but _which ought to be_, strictly canvassed, examined, and amended\nby the British Parliament.\"\n\nThe second and last step to be taken by the Abolitionists should be, to\ncollect all possible light on the subject of _emancipation_ with a view\nof carrying that measure into effect in its due time. They ought never\nto forget, that _emancipation_ was included in _their original idea of\nthe abolition of the slave trade_. Slavery was then as much an evil in\ntheir eyes as the trade itself; and so long as the former continues in\nits present state, the extinction of it ought to be equally an object of\ntheir care. All the slaves in our colonies, whether men, women, or\nchildren, whether _Africans or Creoles_, have been unjustly deprived of\ntheir rights. There is not a master, who has the least claim to their\nservices in point of equity. There is, therefore, a great debt due to\nthem, and for this no payment, no amends, no equivalent can be found,\nbut a _restoration to their liberty_.\n\nThat all have been unjustly deprived of their rights, may be easily\nshown by examining the different grounds on which they are alleged to be\nheld in bondage. With respect to those in our colonies, who are\n_Africans_, I never heard of any title to them but by the _right of\npurchase_. But it will be asked, where did the purchasers get them? It\nwill be answered, that they got them from the sellers; and where did the\nsellers, that is, the original sellers, get them? They got them by\n_fraud or violence_. So says the evidence before the House of Commons;\nand so, in fact, said both Houses of Parliament, when they abolished the\ntrade: and this is the plea set up for retaining them in a cruel\nbondage!!!\n\nWith respect to the rest of the slaves, that is, the _Creoles_, or those\nborn in the colonies, the services, the perpetual services, of these are\nclaimed on the plea of the _law of birth_. They were born slaves, and\nthis circumstance is said to give to their masters a sufficient right to\ntheir persons. But this doctrine sprung from the old Roman law, which\ntaught that all slaves were to be considered as _cattle_. \"Partus\nsequitur ventrem,\" says this law, or the \"condition or lot of the mother\ndetermines the condition or lot of the offspring.\" It is the same law,\nwhich we ourselves now apply to cattle while they are in our possession.\nThus the calf belongs to the man who owns the cow, and the foal to the\nman who owns the mare, and not to the owner of the bull or horse, which\nwere the male parents of each. It is then upon this, the old Roman law,\nand not upon any English law, that the planters found their right to the\nservices of such as are born in slavery. In conformity with this law\nthey denied, for one hundred and fifty years, both the moral and\nintellectual nature of their slaves. They considered them themselves,\nand they wished them to be considered by others, in these respects, as\nupon a level only _with the beasts of the field_. Happily, however,\ntheir efforts have been in vain. The evidence examined before the House\nof Commons in the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, has confirmed the\nfalsehood of their doctrines. It has proved that the social affections\nand the intellectual powers both of Africans and Creoles are the same as\nthose of other human beings. What then becomes of the Roman law? For as\nit takes no other view of slaves than as _cattle_, how is it applicable\nto those, whom we have so abundantly proved _to be men_?\n\nThis is the grand plea, upon which our West Indian planters have founded\ntheir right to the perpetual services of their _Creole_ slaves. They\nconsider them as the young or offspring of cattle. But as the slaves in\nquestion have been proved, and are now acknowledged, to be the offspring\nof men and women, of social, intellectual, and accountable beings, their\nright must fall to the ground. Nor do I know upon what other principle\nor right they can support it. They can have surely no _natural right_ to\nthe infant, who is born of a woman slave. If there be any right to it by\n_nature_, such right must belong, not to the master of the mother, but\nto the mother herself. They can have no right to it again, either on the\nscore of _reason_ or of _justice_. Debt and crime have been generally\nadmitted to be two fair grounds, on which men may be justly deprived of\ntheir liberty for a time, and even made to labour, inasmuch as they\ninclude _reparation of injury_, and the duty of the magistrate to _make\nexamples_, in order that he may not bear the sword in vain. But what\ninjury had the infant done, when it came into the world, to the master\nof its mother, that reparation should be sought for, or punishment\ninflicted for example, and that this reparation and this punishment\nshould be made to consist of a course of action and suffering, against\nwhich, more than against any other, human nature would revolt? Is it\nreasonable, is it just, that a poor infant who has done no injury to any\none, should be subjected, _he and his posterity for ever_, to _the\narbitrary will and tyranny of another_, and moreover to _the condition\nof a brute_, because by _mere accident_, and by _no fault_ or _will of\nhis own_, he was born of a person, who had been previously in the\ncondition of a slave?\n\nAnd as the right to slaves, because they were born slaves, cannot be\ndefended either upon the principles of reason or of justice, so this\nright absolutely falls to pieces, when we come to try it by the\ntouchstone _of the Christian religion_. Every man who is born into the\nworld, whether he be white or whether he be black, is born, according to\nChristian notions, a _free agent_ and _an accountable creature_. This is\nthe Scriptural law of his nature as a human bring. He is born under this\nlaw, and he continues under it during his life. Now the West Indian\nslavery is of such an arbitrary nature, that it may be termed _proper_\nor _absolute_. The dominion attached to it is a despotism without\ncontrol; a despotism, which keeps up its authority by terror only. The\nsubjects of it _must do_, and this _instantaneously_, whatever their\nmaster _orders them to do_, whether it _be right or wrong_. His will,\nand his will alone, is their law. If the wife of a slave were ordered by\na master to submit herself to his lusts, and therefore to commit\nadultery, or if her husband were ordered to steal any thing for him, and\ntherefore to commit theft, I have no conception that either the one or\nthe other would _dare_ to disobey his commands. \"The whip, the shackles,\nthe dungeon,\" says Mr. Steele before mentioned, \"are at all times in his\npower, whether it be to gratify his _lust_, or display his\nauthority[3].\" Now if the master has the power, _a just, and moral\npower_, to make his slaves do what he orders them to do, even if it be\nwrong, then I must contend that the Scriptures, whose authority we\nvenerate, are false. I must contend that his slaves never could have\nbeen born free agents and accountable creatures; or that, as soon as\nthey became slaves, they were absolved from the condition of free-agency\nand that they lost their responsibility as men. But if, on the other\nhand, it be the revealed will of God, that all men, without exception,\nmust be left free to act, but accountable to God for their actions;--I\ncontend that no man can be born, nay, further, that no man can be made,\nheld, or possessed, as a proper slave. I contend that there can be,\naccording to the Gospel-dispensation, _no such state as West Indian\nslavery_. But let us now suppose for a moment, that there might be found\nan instance or two of slaves enlightened by some pious Missionary, who\nwould refuse to execute their master's orders on the principle that they\nwere wrong; even this would not alter our views of the case. For would\nnot this refusal be so unexampled, so unlooked-for, so immediately\ndestructive to all authority and discipline, and so provocative of\nanger, that it would be followed by _immediate and signal punishment_?\nHere then we should have a West Indian master reversing all the laws and\nrules of civilized nations, and turning upside down all the morality of\nthe Gospel by the novel practice of _punishing men for their virtues_.\nThis new case affords another argument, why a man cannot be born a\nproper slave. In fact, the whole system of our planters appears to me to\nbe so directly in opposition to the whole system of our religion, that I\nhave no conception, how a man can have been born a slave, such as the\nWest Indian is; nor indeed have I any conception, how he can be,\nrightly, or justly, or properly, a West Indian slave at all. There\nappears to me something even impious in the thought; and I am convinced,\nthat many years will not pass, before the West Indian slavery will\nfall, and that future ages will contemplate with astonishment how the\npreceding could have tolerated it.\n\nIt has now appeared, if I have reasoned conclusively, that the West\nIndians have no title to their slaves on the ground of purchase, nor on\nthe plea of the law of birth, nor on that of any natural right, nor on\nthat of reason or justice, and that Christianity absolutely annihilates\nit. It remains only to show, that they have no title to them on the\nground of _original grants or permissions of Governments_, or of _Acts\nof Parliament_, or of _Charters_, or of _English law_.\n\nWith respect to original grants or permissions of Governments, the case\nis very clear. History informs us, that neither the African slave trade\nnor the West Indian slavery would have been allowed, had it not been for\nthe _misrepresentations_ and _falsehoods_ of those, _who were first\nconcerned in them_. The Governments of those times were made to believe,\nfirst, that the poor Africans embarked _voluntarily_ on board the ships\nwhich took them from their native land; and secondly, that they were\nconveyed to the Colonies principally for _their own benefit_, or out of\n_Christian feeling for them_, that they might afterwards _be converted\nto Christianity_. Take as an instance of the first assertion, the way in\nwhich Queen Elizabeth was deceived, in whose reign the execrable slave\ntrade began in England. This great princess seems on the very\ncommencement of the trade to have questioned its lawfulness. She seems\nto have entertained a religious scruple concerning it, and indeed, to\nhave revolted at the very thoughts of it. She seems to have been aware\nof the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it were\nsanctioned, the most unjustifiable means might be made use of to procure\nthe persons of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would have\nviewed any acts of this kind, had they taken place to her knowledge, we\nmay conjecture from this fact--that when Captain (afterwards Sir John)\nHawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whither\nhe had carried slaves, she sent for him, and, as we learn from Hill's\nNaval History, expressed her concern lest any of the Africans should be\ncarried off _without their free consent_, declaring, \"that it would be\ndetestable and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers.\"\nCapt. Hawkins promised to comply with the injunctions of Elizabeth in\nthis respect. But he did not keep his word; for when he went to Africa\nagain, _he seized_ many of the inhabitants _and carried them off_ as\nslaves, \"Here (says Hill) began the horrid practice of forcing the\nAfricans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity, which, so sure as\nthere is vengeance in Heaven for the worst of crimes, will sometime be\nthe destruction of all who encourage it.\" Take as an instance of the\nsecond what Labat, a Roman missionary, records in his account of the\nIsles of America. He says, that Louis the Thirteenth was very uneasy,\nwhen he was about to issue the edict, by which all Africans coming into\nhis colonies were to be made slaves; and that this uneasiness continued,\ntill he was assured that the introduction of them in this capacity into\nhis foreign dominions was the readiest way of _converting them_ to the\nprinciples _of the Christian religion_. It was upon these ideas then,\nnamely, that the Africans left their own country voluntarily, and that\nthey were to receive the blessings of Christianity, and upon these\nalone, that the first transportations were allowed, and that the first\n_English_ grants and Acts of Parliament, and that the first _foreign_\nedicts, sanctioned them. We have therefore the fact well authenticated,\nas it relates _to original Government grants and permissions_, that the\nowners of many of the Creole slaves in our colonies have no better title\nto them as property, than as being the descendants of persons forced\naway from their country and brought thither by a traffic, which had its\nallowed origin in _fraud and falsehood_.\n\nNeither have the masters of slaves in our colonies any title to their\nslaves on account of any _charters_, which they may be able to produce,\nthough their charters are the only source of their power. It is through\nthese that they have hitherto legislated, and that they continue to\nlegislate. Take away their charters, and they would have no right or\npower to legislate at all. And yet, though they have their charters, and\nthough the slavery, which now exists, has been formed and kept together\nentirely by the laws, which such charters have given them the power to\nmake, this very slavery _is illegal_. There is not an individual, who\nholds any of the slaves by a _legal_ title: for it is expressed in all\nthese charters, whether in those given to William Penn and others for\nthe continent of North America, or in those given for the islands now\nunder our consideration, that \"the laws and statutes, to be made there,\nare _not to be repugnant_, but, as near as may be, _agreeable, to the\nlaws_ and statutes of this our _kingdom of Great Britain_.\" But is it\nconsistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the\npower of forcing another to work for him without wages? Is it consistent\nwith the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of\nflogging, beating, bruising, or wounding another at his discretion? Is\nit consistent with the laws of England, that a man should be judged by\nany but his peers? Is it consistent with the same laws, that a man\nshould be deprived of the power of giving evidence against the man who\nhas injured him? or that there should be a privileged class, against\nwhom no testimony can be admitted on certain occasions, though the\nperpetrators of the most horrid crimes? But when we talk of consistency\non this occasion, let us not forget that old law of Barbadoes,  made\nwhile the charter of that island was fresh in every body's memory, and\ntherefore in the very teeth of the charter itself, which runs thus: \"If\nany slave, under punishment by his master or by his order, shall suffer\nin life or member, no person shall be liable to any fine for the same:\nbut if any person shall _wantonly_ or _cruelly_ kill his own slave, he\nshall pay the treasury 15 l.\" And here let us remark, that, when Lord\nSeaforth, governor of Barbadoes, proposed, so lately as in 1802, the\nrepeal of this bloody law, the Legislature of that island rejected the\nproposition with indignation. Nay, the very proposal to repeal it so\nstirred up at the time the bad passions of many, that several brutal\nmurders of slaves were committed in consequence; and it was not till two\nor three years afterwards that the governor had influence enough to get\nthe law repealed. Let the West Indians then talk no more of their\n_charters_; for in consequence of having legislated upon principles,\nwhich are at variance with those upon which the laws of England are\nfounded, they have _forfeited them all_. The mother country has\ntherefore a right to withdraw these charters whenever she pleases, and\nto substitute such others as she may think proper. And here let it be\nobserved also, that the right of the West Indians to make any laws at\nall for their own islands being founded upon their charters, and upon\nthese alone, and the laws relating to the slaves being contrary to what\nsuch charters prescribe, the _slavery itself_, that is, the daily living\npractice with respect to slaves under such laws, _is illegal_ and _may\nbe done away_. But if so, all our West Indian slaves are, without\nexception, unlawfully held in bondage. There is no master, who has a\nlegal title to any of them. This assertion may appear strange and\nextravagant to many; but it does not follow on that account that it is\nthe less true. It is an assertion, which has been made by a West Indian\nproprietor himself. Mr. Steele[4], before quoted, furnishes us with what\npassed at the meeting of the Society of Arts in Barbadoes at their\ncommittee-room in August 1785, when the following question was in the\norder of the day: \"Is there any law written, or printed, by which a\nproprietor can prove his title to his slave under or conformable to the\nlaws of England?\" And \"Why, (immediately said one of the members,) why\nconformable to the laws of England? Will not the courts in England admit\nsuch proof as is authorized by _our slave laws_?\"--\"I apprehend not,\n(answered a second,) unless we can show that _our slave laws_ (according\nto the limitations of the charter) are _not_ repugnant to the laws of\nEngland.\"--The same gentleman resumed: \"Does the original purchaser of\nan African slave in this island obtain any legal title from the merchant\nor importer of slaves--and of what nature? Does it set forth any title\nof propriety, agreeable to the laws of England (or even to the laws of\nnations) to be in the importer more than what depends upon his simple\naverment? And have not free Negroes been at sundry times trepanned by\nsuch dealers, and been brought contrary to the laws of nations, and sold\nhere as slaves?\"--\"There is no doubt, (observed a third,) but such\nvillainous actions have been done by worthless people: however, though\nan honest and unsuspicious man may be deceived in buying a stolen horse,\nit does not follow that he may not have a fair and just title to a horse\nor any thing else bought in an open and legal market; but according to\nthe obligation _of being not repugnant to the laws of England_, I do not\nsee how _we can have any title to our slaves_ likely to be supported by\nthe laws of England.\" In fact, the Colonial system is an excrescence\nupon the English Constitution, and is constantly at variance with it.\nThere is not one English law, which gives a man a right to the liberty\nof any of his fellow creatures. Of course there cannot be, according to\ncharters, any Colonial law to this effect. If there be, it is _null and\nvoid_. Nay, the very man, who is held in bondage by the Colonial law,\nbecomes free by English law the moment he reaches the English shore. But\nwe have said enough for our present purpose. We have shown that the\nslaves in our Colonies, whether they be Africans, or whether they be\nCreoles, _have been unjustly deprived of their rights_. There is of\ncourse a great debt due to them. They have a claim to a restoration to\nliberty; and as this restoration was included by the Abolitionists in\ntheir original idea of the abolition of the slavetrade, so it is their\nduty to endeavour to obtain it _the first moment it is practicable_. I\nshall conclude my observations on this part of the subject, in the words\nof that old champion of African liberty, Mr. W. Smith, the present\nMember for Norwich, when addressing the House of Commons in the last\nsession of parliament on a particular occasion. He admitted, alluding to\nthe slaves in our colonies, that \"immediate emancipation might be an\ninjury, and not a blessing to the slaves themselves. A period of\n_preparation_, which unhappily included delay, seemed to be necessary.\nThe ground of this delay, however, was not the intermediate advantage to\nbe derived from their labour, but a conviction of its expediency as it\nrelated to themselves. We had to _compensate_ to these wretched beings\n_for ages of injustice_. We were bound by the strongest obligations _to\ntrain up_ these subjects of our past injustice and tyranny _for an equal\nparticipation with ourselves in the blessings of liberty and the\nprotection of the law_; and by these considerations ought our measures\nto be strictly and conscientiously regulated. It was only in consequence\nof the necessity of time to be consumed in such a preparation, that we\ncould be justified in the retention of the Negroes in slavery _for a\nsingle hour_; and he trusted that the eyes of all men, both here and in\nthe colonies, would be open to this view of the subject as their clear\nand indispensable duty.\"\n\nHaving led the reader to the first necessary step to be taken in favour\nof our slaves in the British Colonies,--namely, the procuring for them a\nnew and better code of laws; and having since led him to the last or\nfinal one,--namely, the procuring for them the rights of which they have\nbeen unjustly deprived: I shall now confine myself entirely to this\nlatter branch of the subject, being assured, that it has a claim to all\nthe attention that can be bestowed upon it; and I trust that I shall be\nable to show, by appealing to historical facts, that however awful and\ntremendous the work of _emancipation_ may seem, it is yet _practicable_;\nthat it is practicable also _without danger_; and moreover, that it is\npracticable with the probability of _advantage_ to all the parties\nconcerned.\n\nIn appealing however to facts for this purpose, we must expect no light\nfrom antiquity to guide us on our way; for history gives us no account\nof persons in those times similarly situated with the slaves in the\nBritish colonies at the present day. There were no particular nations in\nthose times, like the Africans, expressly set apart for slavery by the\nrest of the world, so as to have a stigma put upon them on that account,\nnor did a difference of the colour of the skin constitute always, as it\nnow does, a most marked distinction between the master and the slave, so\nas to increase this stigma and to perpetuate antipathies between them.\nNor did the slaves of antiquity, except perhaps once in Sparta, form the\nwhole labouring population of the land; nor did they work incessantly,\nlike the Africans, under the whip; nor were they generally so behind\ntheir masters in cultivated intellect. Neither does ancient history give\nus in the cases of manumission, which it records, any parallel, from\nwhich we might argue in the case before us. The ancient manumissions\nwere those of individuals only, generally of but one at a time, and only\nnow and then; whereas the emancipation, which we contemplate in the\ncolonies, will comprehend _whole bodies of men_, nay, _whole\npopulations_, at a given time. We must go therefore in quest of examples\nto modern times, or rather to the history of the colonial slavery\nitself; and if we should find any there, which appear to bear at all\nupon the case in question, we must be thankful for them, and, though\nthey should not be entirely to our mind, we must not turn them away, but\nkeep them, and reason from them as far as their analogies will warrant.\n\nIn examining a period comprehending the last forty years, I find no less\nthan six or seven instances of the emancipation of African slaves _in\nbodies_. The first of these cases occurred at the close of the first\nAmerican war. A number of slaves had run away from their North American\nmasters and joined the British army. When peace came, the British\nGovernment did not know what to do with them. Their services were no\nlonger wanted. To leave them behind to fall again into the power of\ntheir masters would have been great cruelty as well as injustice; and as\nto taking them to England, what could have been done with them there? It\nwas at length determined to give _them their liberty_, and to disband\nthem in Nova Scotia, and to settle them there upon grants of land as\n_British subjects_ and as _free men_. The Nova Scotians on learning\ntheir destination were alarmed. They could not bear the thought of\nhaving such a number of black persons among them, and particularly as\nthese understood the use of arms. The Government, however, persevering\nin its original intention, they were conveyed to Halifax, and\ndistributed from thence into the country. Their number, comprehending\nmen, women, and children, were two thousand and upwards. To gain their\nlivelihood, some of them worked upon little portions of land of their\nown; others worked as carpenters; others became fishermen; and others\nworked for hire in other ways. In process of time they raised places of\nworship of their own, and had ministers of their own from their own\nbody. They led a harmless life, and gained the character of an\nindustrious and honest people from their white neighbours. A few years\nafterwards the land in Nova Scotia being found too poor to answer, and\nthe climate too cold for their constitutions, a number of them, to the\namount of between thirteen and fourteen hundred, volunteered to form a\nnew colony, which was then first thought of, at Sierra Leone.\nAccordingly, having been conveyed there, they realized the object in\nview; and they are to be found there, they or their descendants, most of\nthem in independent and some of them in affluent circumstances, at the\npresent day.\n\nA second case may be taken from what occurred at the close of the\nsecond, or last American war. It may be remembered that a large British\nnaval force, having on board a powerful land force, sailed in the year\n1814, to make a descent on the coast of the southern States of America.\nThe British army, when landed, marched to Washington, and burnt most of\nits public buildings. It was engaged also at different times with the\nAmerican army in the field. During these expeditions, some hundreds of\nslaves in these parts joined the British standard by invitation. When\nthe campaign was over, the same difficulty occurred about disposing of\nthese as in the former case. It was determined at length to ship them to\nTrinidad _as free labourers_. But here, that is, at Trinidad, an\nobjection was started against receiving them, but on a different ground\nfrom that which had been started in the similar case in Nova Scotia. The\nplanters of Trinidad were sure that no free Negroes would ever work,\nand therefore that the slaves in question would, if made free and\nsettled among them, support themselves _by plunder_. Sir Ralph Woodford,\nhowever, the governor of the island, resisted the outcry of these\nprejudices. He received them into the island, and settled them where he\nsupposed the experiment would be most safely made. The result has shown\nhis discernment. These very men, formerly slaves in the Southern States\nof America and afterwards emancipated in a body at Trinidad, are now\nearning their own livelihood, and with so much industry and good conduct\nthat the calumnies originally spread against them have entirely died\naway.\n\nA third case may comprehend those Negroes, who lately formed what we\ncall our West Indian black regiments. Some of these had been originally\npurchased in Africa, not as slaves but recruits, and others in Jamaica\nand elsewhere. They had all served as soldiers in the West Indies. At\nlength certain of these regiments were transported to Sierra Leone and\ndisbanded there, and the individuals composing them received their\ndischarge _as free men_. This happened in the spring of 1819. _Many\nhundreds_ of them were _set at liberty at once_ upon this occasion. Some\nof these were afterwards marched into the interior, where they founded\nWaterloo, Hastings, and other villages. Others were shipped to the Isles\nde Loss, where they made settlements in like manner. Many, in both\ncases, took with them their wives, which they had brought from the West\nIndies, and others selected wives from the natives on the spot. They\nwere all settled upon grants given them by the Government. It appears\nfrom accounts received from Sir Charles M'Carthy, the governor of Sierra\nLeone, that they have conducted themselves to his satisfaction, and that\nthey will prove a valuable addition to that colony.\n\nA fourth case may comprehend what we call _the captured Negroes_ in the\ncolony now mentioned. These are totally distinct from those either in\nthe first or in the last of the cases which have been mentioned. It is\nwell known that these were taken out of slave-ships captured at\ndifferent times from the commencement of the abolition of the slave\ntrade to the present moment, and that on being landed _they were made\nfree_. After having been recruited in their health they were marched in\nbodies into the interior, where they were taught to form villages and to\ncultivate land for themselves. They were _made free_ as they were landed\nfrom the vessels, _from fifty to two or three hundred at a time_. They\noccupy at present twelve towns, in which they have both their churches\nand their schools. Regents Town having been one of the first\nestablished, containing about thirteen hundred souls, stands foremost in\nimprovement, and has become a pattern for industry and good example.\nThe people there have now fallen entirely into the habits of English\nsociety. They are decently and respectably dressed. They attend divine\nworship regularly. They exhibit an orderly and moral conduct. In their\ntown little shops are now beginning to make their appearance; and their\nlands show the marks of extraordinary cultivation. Many of them, after\nhaving supplied their own wants for the year, have a surplus produce in\nhand for the purchase of superfluities or comforts.\n\nHere then are four cases of slaves, either Africans or descendants of\nAfricans, _emancipated_ in _considerable bodies_ at a time. I have kept\nthem by themselves, became they are of a different complexion from\nthose, which I intend should follow. I shall now reason upon them. Let\nme premise, however, that I shall consider the three first of the cases\nas one, so that the same reasoning will do for all. They are alike\nindeed in their _main_ features; and we must consider this as\nsufficient; for to attend minutely to every shade of difference[5],\nwhich may occur in every case, would be to bewilder the reader, and to\nswell the size of my work unnecessarily, or without conferring an\nadequate benefit to the controversy on either side.\n\nIt will be said then (for my reasoning will consist principally in\nanswering objections on the present occasion) that the three first cases\n_are not strictly analogous_ to that of our West Indian slaves, whose\nemancipation we are seeking. It will be contended, that the slaves in\nour West Indian colonies have been constantly in an abject and degraded\nstate. Their faculties are benumbed. They have contracted all the vices\nof slavery. They are become habitually thieves and liars. Their bosoms\nburn with revenge against the whites. How then can persons in such a\nstate be fit to receive their freedom? The slaves, on the other hand,\nwho are comprehended in the three cases above mentioned, found in the\nBritish army a school as it were, _which fitted them by degrees for\nmaking a good use of their liberty_. While they were there, they were\nnever out of the reach of discipline, and yet were daily left to\nthemselves to act as free men. They obtained also in this _preparatory\nschool_ some knowledge of the customs of civilized life. They were in\nthe habit also of mixing familiarly with the white soldiers. Hence, it\nwill be said, they were in a state much _more favourable for undergoing\na change in their condition_ than the West Indian slaves before\nmentioned. I admit all this. I admit the difference between the two\nsituations, and also the preference which I myself should give to the\none above the other on account of its desirable tendencies. But I never\nstated, that our West Indian slaves were to be emancipated _suddenly_,\nbut _by degrees_. I always, on the other hand, took it for granted, that\nthey were to have _their preparatory school_ also. Nor must it be\nforgotten, as a comparison has been instituted, that if there was _less\ndanger_ in emancipating the other slaves, _because they had received\nsomething like a preparatory education_ for the change, there was _far\nmore_ in another point of view, because _they were all acquainted with\nthe use of arms_. This is a consideration of great importance; but\nparticularly when we consider _the prejudices of the blacks against the\nwhites_; for would our West Indian planters be as much at their ease, as\nthey now are, if their slaves had acquired _a knowledge of the use of\narms_, or would they think them on this account more or less fit for\nemancipation?\n\nIt will be said again, that the fourth case, consisting of the Sierra\nLeone captured Negroes, _is not strictly analogous_ to the one in point.\nThese had probably been slaves but _for a short time_,--say a few\nmonths, including the time which elapsed between their reduction to\nslavery and their embarkation from Africa, and between this their\nembarkation and their capture upon the ocean. They had scarcely been\nslaves when they were returned to the rank of free men. Little or no\nchange therefore could have been effected in so short an interim in\ntheir disposition and their character; and, as they were never carried\nto the West Indies, so they never could have contracted the bad habits,\nor the degradation or vices, of the slavery there. It will be contended\ntherefore, that they were _better_, _or less hazardous_, subjects for\n_emancipation_, than the slaves in our colonies. I admit this objection,\nand I give it its full weight. I admit it to be _less hazardous_ to\nemancipate a _new_ than an _old_ slave. And yet the case of the Sierra\nLeone captured Negroes is a very strong one. They were all _Africans_.\nThey were all _slaves_. They must have contracted _as mortal a hatred of\nthe whites_ from their sufferings on board ship by fetters, whips, and\nsuffocation in the hold, as the West Indian from those severities which\nare attached to their bondage upon shore. Under these circumstances then\nwe find them _made free_; but observe, not after any _preparatory_\ndiscipline, but almost _suddenly_, and _not singly_, but _in bodies_ at\na time. We find them also settled or made to live under the _unnatural_\ngovernment of the _whites_; and, what is more extraordinary, we find\ntheir present number, as compared with that of the whites in the same\ncolony, nearly as _one hundred and fifty to one_; notwithstanding which\nsuperiority fresh emancipations are constantly taking place, as fresh\ncargoes of the captured arrive in port.\n\nIt will be said, lastly, that all the four cases put together prove\nnothing. They can give us nothing like _a positive assurance_, that the\nNegro slaves in our colonies would pass through the ordeal of\nemancipation without danger to their masters or the community at large.\nCertainly not. Nor if these instances had been far more numerous than\nthey are, could they, in this world of accidents, have given us _a moral\ncertainty of this_. They afford us however _a hope_, that emancipation\nis practicable without danger: for will any one pretend to say, that we\nshould have had as much reason for entertaining such a hope, _if no such\ninstances had occurred_; or that we should not have had reason to\ndespair, _if four such experiments had been made, and if they had all\nfailed_? They afford us again ground for believing, that there is a\npeculiar softness, and plasticity, and pliability in the African\ncharacter. This softness may be collected almost every where from the\nTravels of Mr. Mungo Park, and has been noticed by other writers, who\nhave contrasted it with the unbending ferocity of the North American\nIndians and other tribes. But if this be a feature in the African\ncharacter, we may account for the uniformity of the conduct of those\nAfricans, who were liberated on the several occasions above mentioned,\nor for their yielding so uniformly to the impressions, which had been\ngiven them by their superiors, after they had been made free; and, if\nthis be so, why should not our colonial slaves, if emancipated, conduct\nthemselves in the same manner? Besides, I am not sure whether the good\nconduct of the liberated in these cases was not to be attributed in part\nto a sense of interest, when they came to know, that their condition\n_was to be improved_. Self-interest is a leading principle with all who\nare born into the world; and why is the Negro slave in our colonies to\nbe shut out from this common feeling of our nature?--why is he to rise\nagainst his master, when he is informed that his condition is to be\nbettered? Did not the planters, as I have before related, declare in the\nHouse of Commons in the year 1816, that their Negroes had then imbibed\nthe idea that they were to be made free, and that they were _extremely\nrestless on that account_? But what was the cause of all this\nrestlessness? Why, undoubtedly the thought of their emancipation was so\ninteresting, or rather a matter of such exceedingly great joy to them,\nthat _they could not help thinking and talking of it_. And would not\nthis be the case with our Negroes at this moment, if such a prospect\nwere to be set before them? But if they would be overjoyed at this\nprospect, is it likely they would cut the throats of those, who should\nattempt to realize it? would they not, on the other hand, be disposed to\nconduct themselves equally well as the other African slaves before\nmentioned, when they came to know, that they were immediately to be\nprepared for the reception of this great blessing, the _first\nguarantee_ of which would be an _immediate_ and _living experience_ of\nbetter laws and better treatment?\n\nThe fifth case may comprehend the slaves of St. Domingo as they were\nmade free at different intervals in the course of the French Revolution.\n\nTo do justice to this case, I must give a history of the different\ncircumstances connected with it. It may be remembered, then, that when\nthe French Revolution, which decreed equality of rights to all citizens,\nhad taken place, the _free People of Colour_ of St. Domingo, many of\nwhom were persons of large property and liberal education, petitioned\nthe National Assembly, that they might enjoy the same political\nprivileges as the _Whites_ there. At length the subject of the petition\nwas discussed, but not till the 8th of March 1790, when the Assembly\nagreed upon a decree concerning it. The decree, however, was worded so\nambiguously, that the two parties in St. Domingo, the _Whites_ and the\n_People of Colour_, interpreted it each of them in its own favour. This\ndifference of interpretation gave rise to animosities between them, and\nthese animosities were augmented by political party-spirit, according as\nthey were royalists or partizans of the French Revolution, so that\ndisturbances took place and blood was shed.\n\nIn the year 1791, the People of Colour petitioned the Assembly again,\nbut principally for an explanation of the decree in question. On the\n15th of May, the subject was taken into consideration, and the result\nwas another decree in explicit terms, which determined, that the _People\nof Colour_ in all the French islands were entitled to all the rights of\ncitizenship, provided _they were born of free parents on both sides_.\nThe news of this decree had no sooner arrived at the Cape, than it\nproduced an indignation almost amounting to phrensy among the _Whites_.\nThey directly trampled under foot the national cockade, and with\ndifficulty were prevented from seizing all the French merchant ships in\nthe roads. After this the two parties armed against each other. Even\ncamps began to be formed. Horrible massacres and conflagrations\nfollowed, the reports of which, when brought to the mother-country, were\nso terrible, that the Assembly abolished the decree in favour of _the\nFree People of Colour_ in the same year.\n\nIn the year 1792, the news of the rescinding of the decree as now\nstated, produced, when it reached St. Domingo, as much irritation among\nthe People of Colour, as the news of the passing of it had done among\nthe Whites, and hostilities were renewed between them, so that new\nbattles, massacres, and burnings, took place. Suffice it to say, that as\nsoon as these events became known in France, the Conventional Assembly,\nwhich had then succeeded the Legislative, took them into consideration.\nSeeing, however, nothing but difficulties and no hope of reconciliation\non either side, they knew not what other course to take than to do\njustice, whatever the consequences might be. They resolved, accordingly,\nin the month of April, that the decree of 1791, which had been both made\nand reversed by the preceding Assembly in the same year, should stand\ngood. They restored therefore the People of Colour to the privileges\nwhich had been before voted to them, and appointed Santhonax, Polverel,\nand another, to repair in person to St. Domingo, with a large body of\ntroops, and to act there as commissioners, and, among other things, to\nenforce the decree and to keep the peace.\n\nIn the year 1793, the same divisions and the same bad blood continuing,\nnotwithstanding the arrival of the commissioners, a very trivial matter,\nviz. a quarrel between a _Mulatto_ and a _White man_ (an officer in the\nFrench marine), gave rise to new disasters. This quarrel took place on\nthe 20th of June. On the same day the seamen left their ships in the\nroads, and came on shore, and made common cause of the affair with the\nwhite inhabitants of the town. On the other side were opposed the\nMulattos and other People of Colour, and these were afterwards joined by\nsome insurgent Blacks. The battle lasted nearly two days. During this\ntime the arsenal was taken and plundered, and some thousands were killed\nin the streets, and more than half the town was burnt. The\ncommissioners, who were spectators of this horrible scene, and who had\ndone all they could to restore peace, escaped unhurt, but they were left\nupon a heap of ruins, and with but little more power than the authority\nwhich their commission gave them. They had only about a thousand troops\nleft in the place. They determined, therefore, under these\ncircumstances, to call in the Negro Slaves in the neighbourhood to their\nassistance. They issued a proclamation in consequence, by which _they\npromised to give freedom to all the Blacks who were willing to range\nthemselves under the banners of the Republic_. This was the first\nproclamation made by public authority for emancipating slaves in St.\nDomingo. It is usually called the Proclamation of Santhonax, though both\ncommissioners had a hand in it; and sometimes, in allusion to the place\nwhere it was issued (the Cape), the Proclamation of the North. The\nresult of it was, that a considerable number of slaves came in and were\nenfranchised.\n\nSoon after this transaction Polverel left his colleague Santhonax at the\nCape, and went in his capacity of commissioner to Port au Prince, the\ncapital of the West. Here he found every thing quiet, and cultivation in\na flourishing state. From Port au Prince he visited Les Cayes, the\ncapital of the South. He had not, however, been long there, before he\nfound that the minds of the slaves began to be in an unsettled state.\nThey had become acquainted with what had taken place in the north, not\nonly with the riots at the Cape, but the proclamation of Santhonax. Now\nthis proclamation, though it sanctioned freedom only for a particular or\ntemporary purpose, did not exclude it from any particular quarter. The\nterms therefore appeared to be open to all who would accept them.\nPolverel therefore, seeing the impression which it had begun to make\nupon the minds of the slaves in these parts, was convinced that\nemancipation could be neither stopped nor retarded, and that it was\nabsolutely necessary for _the personal safety of the white planters_,\nthat it should be extended _to the whole island_. He was so convinced of\nthe necessity of this, _that he drew up a proclamation_ without further\ndelay _to that effect_, and _put it into circulation_. He dated it from\nLes Cayes. He exhorted the planters to patronize it. He advised them, if\nthey wished to avoid the most serious calamities, to concur themselves\nin the proposition of giving freedom to their slaves. He then caused a\nregister to be opened at the Government house to receive the signatures\nof all those who should approve of his advice. It was remarkable that\nall the proprietors in these parts inscribed their names in the book. He\nthen caused a similar register to be opened at Port au Prince for the\nWest. Here the same disposition was found to prevail. All the planters,\nexcept one, gave in their signatures. They had become pretty generally\nconvinced by this time, that their own personal safety was connected\nwith the measure. It may be proper to observe here, that the\nproclamation last mentioned, which preceded these registries, though it\nwas the act of Polverel alone, was sanctioned afterwards by Santhonax.\nIt is, however, usually called the Proclamation of Polverel or of Les\nCayes. It came out in September 1793. We may now add, that in the month\nof February 1794, the Conventional Assembly of France, though probably\nignorant of what the commissioners had now done, passed a decree for the\nabolition of slavery throughout _the whole of the French colonies_. Thus\nthe Government of the mother-country, without knowing it, confirmed\nfreedom to those upon whom it had been bestowed by the commissioners.\nThis decree put therefore _the finishing stroke to the whole_. It\ncompleted the emancipation of the _whole slave population of St.\nDomingo_.\n\nHaving now given a concise history of the abolition of slavery in St.\nDomingo, I shall inquire how those who were liberated on these several\noccasions conducted themselves after this change in their situation. It\nis of great importance to us to know, whether they used their freedom\nproperly, or whether they abused it.\n\nWith respect to those emancipated by Santhonax in the North, we have\nnothing to communicate. They were made free for military purposes only;\nand we have no clue whereby we can find out what became of them\nafterwards.\n\nWith respect to those who were emancipated next in the South, and those\ndirectly afterwards in the West, by the proclamation of Polverel, we are\nenabled to give a very pleasing account. Fortunately for our views,\nColonel Malenfant, who was resident in the island at the time, has made\nus acquainted with their general conduct and character. His account,\nthough short, is quite sufficient for our purpose. Indeed it is highly\nsatisfactory[6]. \"After this public act of emancipation,\" says he, (by\nPolverel,) \"the Negroes _remained quiet_ both _in the South and in the\nWest_, and they _continued to work upon all the plantations_. There were\nestates, indeed, which had neither owners nor managers resident upon\nthem, for some of these had been put into prison by Montbrun; and\nothers, fearing the same fate, had fled to the quarter which had just\nbeen given up to the English. Yet upon these estates, though abandoned,\nthe Negroes _continued their labours_, where there were any, even\ninferior, agents to guide them; and on those estates, where no white men\nwere left to direct them, they betook themselves to the planting of\nprovisions; but upon _all the plantations_ where the Whites resided, the\nBlacks _continued to labour as quietly as before_.\" A little further on\nin the work, ridiculing the notion entertained in France, that the\nNegroes would not work without compulsion, he takes occasion to allude\nto other Negroes, who had been liberated by the same proclamation, but\nwho were more immediately under his own eye and cognizance[7]. \"If,\"\nsays he, \"you will take care not to speak to them of their return to\nslavery, but talk to them about their liberty, you may with this latter\nword chain them down to their labour. How did Toussaint succeed? How did\nI succeed also before his time in the plain of the Cul de Sac, and on\nthe Plantation Gouraud, more than eight months after liberty had been\ngranted (by Polverel) to the slaves? Let those who knew me at that time,\nand even the Blacks themselves, be asked. They will all reply, that _not\na single Negro_ upon that plantation, consisting of more than four\nhundred and fifty labourers, _refused to work_; and yet this plantation\nwas thought to be under the worst discipline, and the slaves the most\nidle, of any in the plain. I, myself, inspired the same activity into\nthree other plantations, of which I had the management.\"\n\nThe above account is far beyond any thing that could have been\nexpected. Indeed, it is most gratifying. We find that the liberated\nNegroes, _both in the South and the West_, continued to work upon their\n_old plantations_, and for their _old masters_; that there was also _a\nspirit of industry_ among them, and that they gave no uneasiness to\ntheir employers; for they are described as continuing to work _as\nquietly as before_. Such was the conduct of the Negroes for the first\nnine months after their liberation, or up to the middle of 1794. Let us\npursue the subject, and see how they conducted themselves after this\nperiod.\n\nDuring the year 1795 and part of 1796 I learn nothing about them,\nneither good, nor bad, nor indifferent, though I have ransacked the\nFrench historians for this purpose. Had there, however, been any thing\nin the way of _outrage_, I should have heard of it; and let me take this\nopportunity of setting my readers right, if, for want of knowing the\ndates of occurrences, they should have connected _certain outrages_,\nwhich assuredly took place in St. Domingo, _with the emancipation of the\nslaves_. The great massacres and conflagrations, which have made so\nfrightful a picture in the history of this unhappy island, had been all\neffected _before the proclamations_ of Santhonax and Polverel. They had\nall taken place _in the days of slavery_, or before the year 1794, that\nis, before the great conventional decree of the mother country was\nknown. They had been occasioned, too, _not originally by the slaves\nthemselves_, but by quarrels between _the white and coloured planters_,\nand between the _royalists_ and the _revolutionists_, who, for the\npurpose of reeking their vengeance upon each other, called in the aid of\ntheir respective slaves; and as to the insurgent Negroes of the North,\nwho filled that part of the colony so often with terror and dismay, they\nwere originally put in motion, according to Malenfant, under _the\nauspices of the royalists_ themselves, to strengthen their own cause,\nand _to put down the partizans of the French revolution_. When Jean\nFran\u00e7ois and Biassou commenced the insurrection, there were many _white\nroyalists_ with them, and the Negroes were made to wear the _white\ncockade_. I repeat, then, that during the years 1795 and 1796, I can\nfind nothing in the History of St. Domingo, wherewith to reproach the\nemancipated Negroes in the way of outrage[8]. There is every reason, on\nthe other hand, to believe, that they conducted themselves, during this\nperiod, in as orderly a manner as before.\n\nI come now to the latter part of the year 1796; and here happily a clue\nis furnished me, by which I have an opportunity of pursuing my inquiry\nwith pleasure. We shall find, that from this time there was no want of\nindustry in those who had been emancipated, nor want of obedience in\nthem as hired servants: they maintained, on the other hand, a\nrespectable character. Let us appeal first to Malenfant. \"The colony,\"\nsays he[9], \"was _flourishing under Toussaint. The Whites lived happily\nand in peace upon their estates, and the Negroes continued to work for\nthem_.\" Now Toussaint came into power, being general-in-chief of the\narmies of St. Domingo, a little before the end of the year 1796, and\nremained in power till the year 1802, or till the invasion of the island\nby the French expedition of Buonaparte under Leclerc. Malenfant means\ntherefore to state, that from the latter end of 1796 to 1802, a period\nof six years, the planters or farmers kept possession of their estates;\nthat they lived upon them, and that they lived upon them peaceably, that\nis, without interruption or disturbance from any one; and, finally, that\nthe Negroes, though they had been all set free, continued to be their\nlabourers. Can there be any account more favourable to our views than\nthis, after so sudden an emancipation.\n\nI may appeal next to General Lacroix, who published his \"Memoirs for a\nHistory of St. Domingo,\" at Paris, in 1819. He informs us, that when\nSanthonax, who had been recalled to France by the Government there,\nreturned to the colony in 1796, \"_he was astonished at the state in\nwhich he found it on his return_.\" This, says Lacroix[10], \"was owing to\nToussaint, who, while he had succeeded in establishing perfect order and\ndiscipline among the black troops, had succeeded also in making the\nblack labourers return to the plantations, there to resume the drudgery\nof cultivation.\"\n\nBut the same author tells us, that in the next year (1797) the most\nwonderful progress had been made in agriculture. He uses these\nremarkable words: \"_The colony_,\" says he[11], \"_marched, as by\nenchantment, towards its ancient splendour; cultivation prospered; every\nday produced perceptible proofs of its progress. The city of the Cape\nand the plantations of the North rose up again visibly to the eye_.\" Now\nI am far from wishing to attribute all this wonderful improvement, this\ndaily visible progress in agriculture, to the mere act of the\nemancipation of the slaves in St. Domingo. I know that many other\ncircumstances which I could specify, if I had room, contributed towards\nits growth; but I must be allowed to maintain, that unless the Negroes,\nwho were then free, _had done their part as labourers_, both by working\nregularly and industriously, and by obeying the directions of their\nsuperintendants or masters, the colony could never have gone on, as\nrelates to cultivation, with the rapidity described.\n\nThe next witness to whom I shall appeal, is the estimable General\nVincent, who lives now at Paris, though at an advanced age. Vincent was\na colonel, and afterwards a general of brigade of artillery in St.\nDomingo. He was stationed there during the time both of Santhonax and\nToussaint. He was also a proprietor of estates in the island. He was the\nman who planned the renovation of its agriculture after the abolition of\nslavery, and one of the great instruments in bringing it to the\nperfection mentioned by Lacroix. In the year 1801, he was called upon by\nToussaint to repair to Paris, to lay before the Directory the new\nconstitution, which had been agreed upon in St. Domingo. He obeyed the\nsummons. It happened, that he arrived in France just at the moment of\nthe peace of Amiens; here he found, to his inexpressible surprise and\ngrief, that Buonaparte was preparing an immense armament, to be\ncommanded by Leclerc, for the purpose of _restoring slavery in St.\nDomingo_. He lost no time in seeing the First Consul, and he had the\ncourage to say at this interview what, perhaps, no other man in France\nwould have dared to say at this particular moment. He remonstrated\nagainst the expedition; he told him to his face, that though the army\ndestined for this purpose was composed of the brilliant conquerors of\nEurope, it could do nothing in the Antilles. It would most assuredly be\ndestroyed by the climate of St. Domingo, even though it should be\ndoubtful, whether it would not be destroyed by the Blacks. He stated, as\nanother argument against the expedition, that it was totally\nunnecessary, and therefore criminal; for that every thing _was going on\nwell_ in St. Domingo. _The proprietors were in peaceable possession of\ntheir estates; cultivation was making a rapid progress; the Blacks were\nindustrious, and beyond example happy_. He conjured him, therefore, in\nthe name of humanity, not to reverse this beautiful state of things. But\nalas! his efforts were ineffectual. The die had been cast: and the only\nreward, which he received from Buonaparte for his manly and faithful\nrepresentations, was banishment to the Isle of Elba.\n\nHaving carried my examination into the conduct of the Negroes after\ntheir liberation to 1802, or to the invasion of the island by Leclerc, I\nmust now leave a blank for nearly two years, or till the year 1804. It\ncannot be expected during a war, in which every man was called to arms\nto defend his own personal liberty, and that of every individual of his\nfamily, that we should see plantations cultivated as quietly as before,\nor even cultivated at all. But this was not the fault of _the\nemancipated Negroes_, but of _their former masters_. It was owing to the\nprejudices of the latter, that this frightful invasion took place;\nprejudices, indeed, common to all planters, where slavery obtains,\nfrom the very nature of their situation, and upon which I have made my\nobservations in a former place. Accustomed to the use of arbitrary\npower, they could no longer brook the loss of their whips. Accustomed\nagain to look down upon the Negroes as an inferior race of beings, or as\nthe reptiles of the earth, they could not bear, peaceably as these had\nconducted themselves, to come into that familiar contact with them, as\n_free labourers_, which the change of their situation required. They\nconsidered them, too, as property lost, but which was to be recovered.\nIn an evil hour, they prevailed upon Buonaparte, by false\nrepresentations and _promises of pecuniary support_, to restore things\nto their former state. The hellish expedition at length arrived upon the\nshores of St. Domingo:--a scene of blood and torture followed, _such as\nhistory had never before disclosed_, and compared with which, _though\nplanned and executed by Whites[12]_, all the barbarities said to have\nbeen perpetrated by the _insurgent Blacks_ of the North, _amount\ncomparatively to nothing_. In fine, the French were driven from the\nisland. Till that time, the planters retained their property, and then\nit was, but not till then, that they lost their all; it cannot,\ntherefore, be expected, as I have said before, that I should have any\nthing to say in favour of the industry or good order of the emancipated\nNegroes, _during such a convulsive period_.\n\nIn the year 1804, Dessalines was proclaimed emperor of this fine\nterritory. Here I resume the thread of my history, (though it will be\nbut for a moment,) in order that I may follow it to its end. In process\nof time, the black troops, containing the Negroes in question, were\ndisbanded, except such as were retained for the peace-establishment of\nthe army. They, who were disbanded, returned to cultivation. As they\nwere free when they became soldiers, so they continued to be free when\nthey became labourers again. From that time to this, there has been no\nwant of subordination or industry among them. They or their descendants\nare the persons, by whom the plains and valleys of St. Domingo _are\nstill cultivated_, and they are reported to follow their occupations\nstill, and with _as fair a character_ as other free labourers in any\nother quarter of the globe.\n\nWe have now seen, that the emancipated Negroes never abused their\nliberty, from the year 1793 (the era of their general emancipation) to\nthe present day, a period of _thirty_ years. An important question then\nseems to force itself upon us, \"What were the measures taken after so\nfrightful an event, as that of emancipation, to secure the tranquillity\nand order which has been described, or to rescue the planters and the\ncolony from ruin?\" I am bound to answer this, if I can, were it only to\ngratify the curiosity of my readers; but more particularly when I\nconsider, that if emancipation should ever be in contemplation in our\nown colonies, it will be desirable to have all the light possible upon\nthat subject, and particularly of precedent or example. It appears then,\nthat the two commissioners, Santhonax and Polverel, aware of the\nmischief which might attend their decrees, were obliged to take the best\nmeasures they could devise to prevent it. One of their first steps was\nto draw up a short code of rules to be observed upon the plantations.\nThese rules were printed and made public. They were also ordered to be\nread aloud to all the Negroes upon every estate, for which purpose the\nlatter were to be assembled at a particular hour once a week. The\npreamble to these regulations insisted upon _the necessity of working,\nwithout which everything would go to ruin_. Among the articles, the two\nthe most worthy of our notice were, that the labourers were to be\nobliged to hire themselves to their masters for _not less than a year_,\nat the end of which (September), but not before, they might quit their\nservice, and engage with others; and that they were to receive _a third\npart_ of the produce of the estate, as a recompense for their labour.\nThese two were _fundamental_ articles. As to the minor, they were not\nalike upon every estate. This code of the commissioners subsisted for\nabout three years.\n\nToussaint, when he came into power, reconsidered this subject, and\nadopted a code of rules of his own. His first object was to prevent\noppression on the part of the master or employer, and yet to secure\nobedience on the part of the labourer. Conceiving that there could be no\nliberty where any one man had the power of punishing another at his\ndiscretion, he took away from every master the use of the whip, and of\nthe chain, and of every other instrument of correction, either by\nhimself or his own order: he took away, in fact, _all power of arbitrary\npunishment_. Every master offending against this regulation was to be\nsummoned, on complaint by the labourer, before a magistrate or intendant\nof police, who was to examine into the case, and to act accordingly.\nConceiving, on the other hand, that a just subordination ought to be\nkept up, and that, wherever delinquency occurred, punishment ought to\nfollow, he ordained, that all labourers offending against the plantation\nlaws, or not performing their contracts, should be brought before the\nsame magistrate or intendant of police, who should examine them touching\nsuch delinquency, and decide as in the former case: thus he administered\njustice without respect of persons. It must be noticed, that all\npunishments were to be executed by a civil officer, a sort of public\nexecutioner, that they might be considered as punishments _by the\nstate_. Thus he _kept up discipline_ on the plantations, _without\nlessening authority_ on the one hand, and _without invading the liberty\nof individuals_ on the other.\n\nAmong his plantation offences was idleness on the part of the labourer.\nA man was not to receive wages from his master, and to do nothing. He\nwas obliged to perform a reasonable quantity of work, or be punished.\nAnother offence was absence without leave, which was considered as\ndesertion.\n\nToussaint differed from the commissioners, as to the length of time for\nwhich labourers should engage themselves to masters. He thought it\nunwise to allow the former, in the infancy of their liberty, to get\nnotions of change and rambling at the end of every year. He ordained,\ntherefore, that they should be attached to the plantations, and made,\nthough free labourers, a sort of _adscripti glebae_ for five years.\n\nHe differed again from the commissioners, as to the quantum of\ncompensation for their labour. He thought one-third of the produce too\nmuch, seeing that the planter had another third to pay to the\nGovernment. He ordered, therefore, one-fourth to the labourer, but this\nwas in the case only, where the labourer clothed and maintained himself:\nwhere he did not do this, he was entitled to a fourth only nominally,\nfor out of this his master was to make a deduction for board and\nclothing.\n\nThe above is all I have been able to collect of the code of Toussaint,\nwhich, under his auspices, had the surprising effect of preserving\ntranquillity and order, and of keeping up a spirit of industry on the\nplantations of St. Domingo, at a time when only idleness and anarchy\nwere to have been expected. It was in force when Leclerc arrived with\nhis invading army, and it continued in force when the French army were\nbeaten and Negro-liberty confirmed. From Toussaint it passed to\nDessalines, and from Dessalines to Christophe and Petion, and from the\ntwo latter to Boyer; and it is the code therefore which regulates, and I\nbelieve with but very little variation, the relative situation of master\nand servant in husbandry at this present hour.\n\nBut it is time that I should now wind up the case before us. And, first,\nwill any one say that this case is not analogous to that which we have\nin contemplation? Let us remember that the number of slaves liberated by\nthe French decrees in St. Domingo was very little short of 500,000\npersons, and that this was nearly equal to the number _of all the\nslaves_ then in the British West Indian Islands when put together. But\nif there be a want of analogy, the difference lies on my side of the\nquestion. I maintain, that emancipation in _St. Domingo_ was attended\nwith _far more hazard_ to persons and property, and with _far greater\ndifficulties_, than it could possibly be, if attempted _in our own\nislands_. Can we forget that by the decree of Polverel, sanctioned\nafterwards by the Convention, all the slaves _were made free at once_,\nor _in a single day_? No notice was given of the event, and of course\n_no preparation_ could be made for it. They were released _suddenly_\nfrom _all their former obligations and restraints_. They were let loose\nupon the Whites, their masters, with _all the vices of slavery_ upon\nthem. What was to have been expected but the dissolution of all\ncivilized society, with the reign of barbarism and terror? Now all I ask\nfor with respect to the slaves in our own islands is, that they should\nbe emancipated _by degrees_, or that they should be made to pass through\na certain course of discipline, _as through a preparatory school_, to\nfit them for the right use of their freedom. Again, can we forget the\nunfavourable circumstances, in which the slaves of St. Domingo were\nplaced, for a year or two before their liberation, in another point of\nview? The island at this juncture was a prey to _political discord,\ncivil war_, and _foreign invasion_, at the same time. Their masters were\npolitically at variance with each other, as they were white or coloured\npersons, or republicans or royalists. They were quarrelling and fighting\nwith each other, and shedding each other's blood. The English, who were\nin possession of the strong maritime posts, were alarming the country by\ntheir incursions: they, the slaves, had been trained up to the same\npolitical animosities. They had been made to take the side of their\nrespective masters, and to pass through scenes of violence and\nbloodshed. Now, whenever emancipation is to be proposed in our own\ncolonies, I anticipate neither _political parties_, nor _civil wars_,\nnor _foreign invasion_, but a time of _tranquillity and peace_. Who then\nwill be bold enough to say, after these remarks, that there could be any\nthing like the danger and difficulties in emancipating the slaves there,\nwhich existed when the slaves of St. Domingo were made free? But some\nobjector may say, after all, \"There is one point in which your analogy\nis deficient. While Toussaint was in power, the Government of St.\nDomingo was a _black_ one, and the Blacks would be more willing to\nsubmit to the authority of a _black_ (their own) Government, than of a\n_white one_. Hence there Were less disorders after emancipation in St.\nDomingo, than would have probably occurred, had it been tried in our own\nislands.\" But to such an objector I should reply, that he knows nothing\nof the history of St. Domingo. The Government of that island was French,\nor _white_, from the very infancy of emancipation to the arrival of the\nexpedition of Leclerc. The slaves were made free under the government\nof Santhonax and Polverel. When these retired, other _white_\ncommissioners succeeded them. When Toussaint came into power, he was not\nsupreme; Generals Hedouille, Vincent, and others, had a share in the\ngovernment. Toussaint himself _received his commission from the French\nDirectory_, and acted under it. He caused it every where to be made\nknown, but particularly among his officers and troops, that he retained\nthe island for the _French Government_, and that _France_ was the\n_mother-country_.\n\nA sixth class of slaves emancipated in bodies may comprehend those, who\nbegan to be liberated about eighteen months ago in the newly-erected\nState of Columbia. General Bolivar began the great work himself by\nenfranchising his own slaves, to the number of between seven and eight\nhundred. But he was not satisfied with this; for believing, as he did,\nthat to hold persons in slavery at all, was not only morally wrong, but\nutterly inconsistent with the character of men fighting for their own\nliberty, he brought the subject before the Congress of Venezuela. The\nCongress there, after having duly considered it, drew up resolutions\naccordingly, which it recommended to the first general Congress of\nColumbia, when it should be assembled. This last congress, which met at\nthe time expected, passed a decree for emancipation on the 19th of July\n1821. All slaves, who had assisted, in a military capacity, in achieving\nthe independence of the republic, were at once declared free. All the\nchildren of slaves, born after the said 19th of July, were to be free in\nsuccession as they attained the eighteenth year of their age. A fund was\nestablished at the same time by a general tax upon property, to pay the\nowners of such young slaves the expense of bringing them up to their\neighteenth year, and for putting them afterwards to trades and useful\nprofessions; and the same fund was made applicable to the purchase of\nthe freedom of adults in each district every year, during the three\nnational festivals in December, as far as the district-funds would\npermit. Care, however, was to be taken to select those of the best\ncharacter. It may be proper to observe, that emancipation, as above\nexplained, has been proceeding regularly, from the 19th of July 1821,\naccording to the terms of the decree, and also according to the ancient\nSpanish code, which still exists, and which is made to go hand in hand\nwith it. They who attain their eighteenth year are not allowed to go at\nlarge after their liberation, but are put under the charge of special\njuntas for a useful education. The adults may have land, if they desire\nit, or they may go where they please. The State has lately purchased\nfreedom for many of the latter, who had a liking to the army. Their\nfreedom is secured to them whether they remain soldiers or are\ndischarged. It is particularly agreeable to me to be able to say that\nall, who have been hitherto emancipated, have conducted themselves\nsince that time with propriety. It appears by a letter from Columbia,\ndated 17th February 1822, about seven months after emancipation had\ncommenced, addressed to James Stephen, Esq. of London, and since made\npublic, \"that the slaves were all then _peaceably at work_ throughout\nthe republic, as well as _the newly enfranchised_ and those originally\nfree.\" And it appears from the account of a gentleman of high\nconsideration just arrived from Columbia, in London, that up to the time\nof his departure, they who had been emancipated \"were _steady_ and\n_industrious_, and that they _had conducted themselves well without a\nsingle exception_.\" But as this is an experiment which it will yet take\nsixteen years to complete, it can only be called to our aid, as far as\nthe result of it is known. It is, however, an experiment to which, as\nfar as it has been made, we may appeal with satisfaction: for when we\nconsider that _eighteen_ months have elapsed, and that _many[13]\nthousands_ have been freed since the passing of the decree and the date\nof the last accounts from Columbia, the decree cannot but be considered\nto have had a sufficient trial.\n\nThe seventh class may comprehend the slaves of the Honourable Joshua\nSteele, whose emancipation was attempted in Barbadoes between the years\n1783 and 1790.\n\nIt appears that Mr. Steele lived several years in London. He was\nVice-president of the London Society of Arts, Manufactures, and\nCommerce, and a person of talent and erudition. He was the proprietor of\nthree estates in Barbadoes. His agent there used to send him accounts\nannually of his concerns; but these were latterly so ruinous, not only\nin a pecuniary point of view, but as they related to what Mr. Steele\ncalled the _destruction_ of his Negroes, that he resolved, though then\nat the advanced age of eighty, to go there, and to look into his affairs\nhimself. Accordingly he embarked, and arrived there early in the year\n1780.\n\nMr. Steele had not been long in Barbadoes, before he saw enough to\nconvince him that there was something radically wrong in the management\nof the slaves there, and he was anxious to try, as well for the sake of\nhumanity as of his own interest, to effect a change in it. But how was\nhe to accomplish this[14]? \"He considered within himself how difficult\nit would be, nay, impossible, for a single proprietor to attempt so\ngreat a novelty as to bring about an alteration of manners and customs\nprotected by iniquitous laws, and to which the gentlemen of the country\nwere reconciled as to the best possible for amending the indocile and\nintractable ignorance of Negro slaves.\" It struck him however, among the\nexpedients which occurred, that he might be able to form a Society,\nsimilar to the one in London, for the purpose of improving the arts,\nmanufactures, and commerce of Barbadoes; and if so, he \"indulged a hope\nthat by means of it conferences might be introduced on patriotic\nsubjects, in the course of which new ideas and new opinions might soften\nthe national bigotry, so far as to admit some discourses on the\npossibility of amendment in the mode of governing slaves.\" Following up\nthis idea, he brought it at length to bear. A Society was formed, in\nconsequence, of gentlemen of the island in 1781. The subjects under its\ndiscussion became popular. It printed its first minutes in 1782, which\nwere very favourably received, and it seemed to bid fair after this to\nanswer the benevolent views of its founder.\n\nDuring this time, a space of two years, Mr. Steele had been gaining a\npractical knowledge of the West Indian husbandry, and also a practical\nknowledge of the temper, disposition, habits, and customs of the slaves.\nHe had also read much and thought much. It may be inferred from his\nwritings, that three questions especially had employed his mind.\n1. Whether he could not do away all arbitrary punishments and yet keep\nup discipline among the slaves? 2. Whether he could not carry on the\nplantation-work through the stimulus of reward? 3. Whether he could not\nchange slavery into a condition of a milder name and character, so that\nthe slaves should be led by degrees to the threshold of liberty, from\nwhence they might step next, without hazard, into the rank of free men,\nif circumstances should permit and encourage such a procedure. Mr.\nSteele thought, after mature consideration, that he could accomplish all\nthese objects, and he resolved to make the experiments gradually upon\nhis own estates.\n\nAt the end of the year 1783 he put the first of these questions to\ntrial. \"I took,\" says he, \"the whips and all power of arbitrary\npunishment from all the overseers and their white servants, which\noccasioned _my chief overseer to resign_, and I soon dismissed all his\ndeputies, who _could not bear the loss of their whips_; but at the same\ntime, that a proper subordination and obedience to lawful orders and\nduty should be preserved, I created a _magistracy out of the Negroes_\nthemselves, and appointed a court or jury of the elder Negroes or\nhead-men for trial and punishment of all casual offences, (and these\ncourts were always to be held in my presence, or in that of my new\nsuperintendant,) which court _very soon grew respectable_. Seven of\nthese men being of the rank of drivers in their different departments,\nwere also constituted _rulers_, as magistrates over all the gang, and\nwere charged to see at all times that nothing should go wrong in the\nplantations; but that on all necessary occasions they should assemble\nand consult together how any such wrong should be immediately rectified;\nand I made it known to all the gangs, that the authority of these rulers\nshould supply the absence or vacancy of an overseer in all cases; they\nmaking daily or occasional reports of all occurrences to the proprietor\nor his delegate for his approbation or his orders.\"\n\nIt appears that Mr. Steele was satisfied with this his first step, and\nhe took no other for some time. At length, in about another year, he\nventured upon the second. He \"tried whether he could not obtain the\nlabour of his Negroes by _voluntary_ means instead of the old method by\nviolence.\" On a certain day he offered a pecuniary reward for holing\ncanes, which is the most laborious operation in West Indian husbandry.\n\"He offered two-pence half-penny (currency), or about three-halfpence\n(sterling), per day, with the usual allowance to holers of a dram with\nmolasses, to any twenty-five of his Negroes, both men and women, who\nwould undertake to hole for canes an acre per day, at about 96-1/2 holes\nfor each Negro to the acre. The whole gang were ready to undertake it;\nbut only fifty of the volunteers were accepted, and many among them were\nthose who _on much lighter occasions_ had usually pleaded _infirmity and\ninability_: but the ground having been moist, they holed twelve acres\nwithin six days with great ease, having had _an hour_, more or less,\n_every evening to spare_, and the like experiment was repeated with the\nlike success. More experiments with such premiums on weeding and deep\nhoeing were made by task-work per acre, and all succeeded in like\nmanner, their premiums being all punctually paid them in proportion to\ntheir performance. But afterwards some of the same people being put\n_without premium_ to weed on a loose cultivated soil in the common\nmanner, _eighteen_ Negroes did not do as much in a given time as _six_\nhad performed of the like sort of work a few days before with the\npremium of two-pence half-penny.\" The next year Mr. Steele made similar\nexperiments. Success attended him again; and from this time task-work,\nor the _voluntary_ system, became the general practice of the estate.\nMr. Steele did not proceed to put the third question to trial till the\nyear 1789. The Society of Arts, which he had instituted in 1781, had\ngreatly disappointed him. Some of the members, looking back to the\ndiscussions which had taken place on the subject of Slavery, began to\nthink that they had gone too far as slaveholders in their admissions.\nThey began to insinuate, \"that they had been taken in, under the\nspecious appearance of promoting the arts, manufactures, and commerce of\nBarbadoes, _to promote dangerous designs against its established laws\nand customs_.\" Discussions therefore of this sort became too unpopular\nto be continued. It was therefore not till Mr. Steele found, that he had\nno hope of assistance from this Society, and that he was obliged to\ndepend solely upon himself, that he put in force the remainder of his\ngeneral plan. He had already (in 1783), as we stated some time ago,\nabolished arbitrary punishment and instituted a Negro-magistracy; and\nsince that time (in 1785) he had adopted the system of _working by the\npiece_. But the remaining part of his plan went the length of _altering\nthe condition_ of the slaves themselves; and it is of this alteration, a\nmost important one (in 1789), that I am now to speak.\n\nMr. Steele took the hint for the particular mode of improving the\ncondition of his slaves, which I am going to describe, from the practice\nof our Anglo-Saxon ancestors in the days of Villainage, which, he says,\nwas \"the most wise and excellent mode of civilizing savage slaves.\"\nThere were in those days three classes of villains. The first or lowest\nconsisted of villains in gross, who were alienable at pleasure. The\nsecond of villains regardent, who were _adscripti glebae_, or attached\nas freehold property to the soil. And the third or last of copyhold\nbondmen, who had tenements of land, for which they were bound to pay in\nservices. The villains first mentioned, or those of the lowest class,\nhad all these gradations to pass through, from the first into the\nsecond, and from the second into the third, before they could become\nfree men. This was the model, from which Mr. Steele resolved to borrow,\nwhen he formed his plan for changing the condition of his slaves. Me did\nnot, however, adopt it throughout, but he chose out of it what he\nthought would be most suitable to his purpose, and left the rest. We may\nnow see what the plan was, when put together, from the following\naccount.\n\nIn the year 1789 he erected his plantations into _manors_. It appears\nthat the Governor of Barbadoes had the power by charter, with the\nconsent of the majority of the council, of dividing the island into\nmanors, lordships, and precincts, and of making freeholders; and though\nthis had not yet been done, Mr. Steele hoped, as a member of council, to\nhave influence sufficient to get his own practice legalized in time.\nPresuming upon this, he registered in the _manor_-book all his adult\nmale slaves as _copyholders_. He then gave to these separate tenements\nof lands, which they were to occupy, and upon which they were to raise\nwhatever they might think most advantageous to their support. These\ntenements consisted of half an acre of plantable and productive land to\neach adult, a quantity supposed to be sufficient with industry to\nfurnish him and his family with provision and clothing. The tenements\nwere made descendible to the heirs of the occupiers or copyholders, that\nis, to their children _on the plantations_; for no part of the\nsuccession was to go out of the plantations to the issue of any foreign\nwife, and, in case of no such heir, they were to fall in to the lord to\nbe re-granted according to his discretion. It was also inscribed that\nany one of the copyholders, who would not perform his services to the\nmanor (the refractory and others), was to forfeit his tenement and his\nprivileged rank, and to go back to villain in gross and to be subject to\ncorporal punishment as before. \"Thus,\" says Mr. Steele, \"we run no risk\nwhatever in making the experiment by giving such copyhold-tenements to\nall our well-deserving Negroes, and to all in general, when they appear\nto be worthy of that favour.\"\n\nMatters having been adjusted so far, Mr. Steele introduced the practice\nof _rent_ and _wages_. He put an annual rent upon each tenement, which\nhe valued at so many days' labour. He set a rent also upon personal\nservice, as due by the copyholder to his master in his former quality of\nslave, seeing that his master or predecessor had purchased a property in\nhim, and this be valued in the same manner. He then added the two rents\ntogether, making so many days' work altogether, and estimated them in\nthe current money of the time. Having done this, he fixed a daily wages\nor pay to be received by the copyholders for the work which they were to\ndo. They were to work 260 days in the year for him, and to have 48\nbesides Sundays for themselves. He reduced these days' work also to\ncurrent money. These wages he fixed at such a rate, that \"they should be\nmore than equivalent to the rent of their copyholds and the rent of\ntheir personal services when put together, in order to hold out to them\nan evident and profitable incentive to their industry.\" It appears that\nthe rent of the tenement, half an acre, was fixed at the rate of 9 l.\ncurrency, or between forty and fifty shillings sterling per acre, and\nthe wages for a man belonging to the first gang at 7-1/2d. currency\nor 6d. sterling per day. As to the rent for the personal services, it\nis not mentioned.\n\nWith respect to labour and things connected with it, Mr. Steele entered\nthe following among the local laws in the _court-roll_ of the tenants\nand tenements. The copyholders were not to work for other masters\nwithout the leave of the lord. They were to work ten hours per day. If\nthey worked over and above that time, they were to be paid for every\nhour a tenth part of their daily wages, and they were also to forfeit a\ntenth for every hour they were absent or deficient in the work of the\nday. All sorts of work, however, were to be reduced, as far as it could\nbe done by observation and estimation, to equitable task-work. Hoes were\nto be furnished to the copyholders in the first instance; but they were\nto renew them, when worn out, at their own expense. The other tools were\nto be lent them, but to be returned to the storekeeper at night, or to\nbe paid for in default of so doing. Mr. Steele was to continue the\nhospital and medical attendance at his own expense as before.\n\nMr. Steele, having now rent to receive and wages to pay, was obliged to\nsettle a new mode of accounting between the plantation and the\nlabourers. \"He brought, therefore, all the minor crops of the\nplantation, such as corn, grain of all sorts, yams, eddoes, besides rum\nand molasses, into a regular cash account by weight and measure, which\nhe charged to the copyhold-storekeeper at market prices of the current\ntime, and the storekeeper paid them at the same prices to such of the\ncopyholders as called for them in part of wages, in whose option it was\nto take either cash or goods, according to their earnings, to answer all\ntheir wants. Rice, salt, salt fish, barrelled pork, Cork butter, flour,\nbread, biscuit, candles, tobacco and pipes, and all species of clothing,\nwere provided and furnished from the store at the lowest market prices.\nAn account of what was paid for daily subsistence, and of what stood in\ntheir arrears to answer the rents of their lands, the fines and\nforfeitures for delinquencies, their head-levy and all other casual\ndemands, was accurately kept in columns with great simplicity, and in\nbooks, which checked each other.\"\n\nSuch was the plan of Mr. Steele, and I have the pleasure of being able\nto announce, that the result of it was _highly satisfactory to himself_.\nIn the year 1788, when only the first and second part of it had been\nreduced to practice, he spoke of it thus:--\"A plantation,\" says he, \"of\nbetween seven and eight hundred acres has been governed by fixed laws\nand a Negro-court _for about five years with great success_. In this\nplantation no overseer or white servant is allowed to lift his hand\nagainst a Negro, nor can he arbitrarily order a punishment. Fixed laws\nand a court or jury of their peers _keep all in order_ without the ill\neffect of sudden and intemperate passions.\" And in the year 1790, about\na year after the last part of his plan had been put to trial, he says in\na letter to Dr. Dickson,  \"My copyholders have succeeded beyond my\nexpectation.\" This was his last letter to that gentleman, for he died in\nthe beginning of the next year. Mr. Steele went over to Barbadoes, as I\nhave said before, in the year 1780, and he was then in the eightieth\nyear of his age. He began his humane and glorious work in 1783, and he\nfinished it in 1789. It took him, therefore, six years to bring his\nNegroes to the state of vassalage described, or to that state from\nwhence he was sure that they might be transferred without danger in no\ndistant time, to the rank of freemen, if it should be thought desirable.\nHe lived one year afterwards to witness the success of his labours. He\nhad accomplished, therefore, all he wished, and he died in the year\n1791, in the ninety-first year of his age.\n\nIt may be proper now, and indeed useful to the cause which I advocate,\nto stop for a moment, just to observe the similarity of sentiment of two\ngreat men, quite unknown to each other; one of whom (Mr. Steele) was\nconcerned in preparing Negro-slaves for freedom, and the other\n(Toussaint) in devising the best mode of managing them after they had\nbeen suddenly made free.\n\nIt appears, first, that they were both agreed in this point, viz. that\nthe _first step_ to be taken in either case, was _the total abolition of\narbitrary punishment_.\n\nIt appears, secondly, that they were nevertheless both agreed again as\nto the necessity of punishing delinquents, but that they adopted\ndifferent ways of bringing them to justice. Toussaint referred them to\n_magistrates_, but Mr. Steele _to a Negro-court_. I should prefer the\nlatter expedient; first, because a Negro-court may be always at hand,\nwhereas magistrates may live at a distance from the plantations, and not\nbe always at home. Secondly, because the holding of a Negro-court would\ngive consequence to those Negroes who should compose it, not only in\ntheir own eyes but in the eyes of others; and every thing, that might\nelevate the Black character, would be useful to those who were _on the\nroad to emancipation_; and, lastly, because there must be some thing\nsatisfactory and consoling to the accused to be tried by their peers.\n\nIt appears, thirdly, that both of them were agreed again in the\nprinciple of making the Negroes, in either case, _adscripti glebae_; or\nattached to the soil, though they might differ as to the length of time\nof such ascription.\n\nAnd it appears, lastly, that they were agreed in another, and this the\nonly remaining point, viz. on the necessity of holding out a stimulus to\neither, so as to excite in them a very superior spirit of industry to\nany they had known before. They resorted, however to different means to\neffect this. Toussaint gave the labourers one _fourth_ of the produce\nof the land; deducting board and clothing. Mr. Steele, on the other\nhand, gave them _daily wages_. I do not know which to prefer; but the\nplan of Mr. Steele is most consonant to the English practice.\n\nBut to return. It is possible that some objector may rise up here as\nbefore, and say that even the case, which I have now detailed, is not,\nstrictly speaking, analogous to that which we have in contemplation, and\nmay argue thus:--\"The case of Mr. Steele is not a complete precedent,\nbecause his slaves were never _fully_ emancipated. He had brought them\nonly to _the threshold_ of liberty, but no further. They were only\n_copyholders_, but _not free men_.\" To this I reply, first, That Mr.\nSteele _accomplished all that he ever aimed at_. I have his own words\nfor saying, that so long as the present iniquitous slave-laws, and the\ndistinction of colour, should exist, it would be imprudent to go\nfurther. I reply again, That the partisans of emancipation would be\nhappy indeed, if they could see the day when our West Indian slaves\nshould arrive at the rank and condition of the copyholders of Mr.\nSteele. They wish for no other freedom than that which is _compatible\nwith the joint interest of the master and the slave_. At the same time\nthey must maintain, that the copyholders of Mr. Steele had been brought\nso near to the condition of free men, that a removal from one into the\nother, after a certain time, seemed more like a thing of course than a\nmatter to be attended either with difficulty or danger: for\nunquestionably their moral character must have been improved. If they\nhad ceased for seven years to feel themselves degraded by arbitrary\npunishment, they must have acquired some little independence of mind. If\nthey had been paid for their labour, they must have acquired something\nlike a spirit of industry. If they had been made to pay rent for their\ncottage and land, and to maintain themselves, they must have been made\nto _look beforehand_, to _think for themselves and families from day to\nday_, and to _provide against the future_, all which operations of the\nmind are the characteristics only of free men. The case, therefore, of\nMr. Steele is most important and precious: for it shows us, first, that\nthe emancipation, which we seek, is a thing which _may be effected_. The\nplan of Mr. Steele was put in force in _a British_ Island, and that,\nwhich was done in one British Island, may under similar circumstances\n_be done again in the same, as well as in another_. It shows us, again,\n_how_ this emancipation may be brought about. The process is so clearly\ndetailed, that any one may follow it. It is also a case for\nencouragement, inasmuch as it was attended with success.\n\nI have now considered no less than six cases of slaves emancipated in\nbodies, and a seventh of slaves, who were led up to the very threshold\nof freedom, comprehending altogether not less than between five and six\nhundred thousand persons; and I have considered also all the objections\nthat could be reasonably advanced against them. The result is a belief\non my part, that emancipation is not only _practicable_, but that it is\n_practicable without danger_. The slaves, whose cases I have been\nconsidering, were resident in different parts of the world. There must\nhave been, amongst such a vast number, persons of _all characters_. Some\nwere liberated, who had been _accustomed to the use of arms_. Others at\na time when the land in which they sojourned was afflicted _with civil\nand foreign wars_; others again _suddenly_, and with _all the vicious\nhabits of slavery upon them_. And yet, under all these disadvantageous\ncircumstances, I find them all, without exception, _yielding themselves\nto the will of their superiors_, so as to be brought by them _with as\nmuch ease and certainty into the form intended for them_, as clay in the\nhands of the potter is fashioned to his own model. But, if this be so, I\nthink I should be chargeable with a want of common sense, were I _to\ndoubt for a moment_, that emancipation _was not practicable_; and I am\nnot sure that I should not be exposed to the same charge, were I to\ndoubt, that emancipation _was practicable without danger_. For I have\nnot been able to discover (and it is most remarkable) _a single failure_\nin any of the cases which have been produced. I have not been able to\ndiscover throughout this vast mass of emancipated persons _a single\ninstance of bad behaviour_ on their parts, not even of a refusal to\nwork, or of disobedience to orders. Much less have I seen frightful\ncommotions, or massacres, or a return of evil for evil, or revenge for\npast injuries, even when they had it amply in their power. In fact, the\nNegro character is malleable at the European will. There is, as I have\nobserved before, a singular pliability in the constitutional temper of\nthe Negroes, and they have besides a quick sense of their own interest,\nwhich influences their conduct. I am convinced, that West India masters\ncan do what they will with their slaves; and that they may lead them\nthrough any changes they please, and with perfect safety to themselves,\nif they will only make them (the slaves) understand that they are to be\nbenefited thereby.\n\nHaving now established, I hope, two of my points, first, that\nemancipation is _practicable_, and, secondly, that it is _practicable\nwithout danger_, I proceed to show the probability that _it would be\nattended with profit_ to those planters who should be permitted to adopt\nit. I return, therefore, to the case of Mr. Steele. I give him the prior\nhearing on this new occasion, because I am sure that my readers will be\nanxious to learn something more about him; or to know what became of his\nplans, or how far such humane endeavours were attended with success.  I\nshall begin by quoting the following expressions of Mr. Steele. \"I have\nemployed and amused myself,\" says he, \"by introducing _an entire new\nmode_ of governing my own slaves, for their happiness, and also _for my\nown profit_.\" It appears, then, that Mr. Steele's new method of\nmanagement was _profitable_. Let us now try to make out from his own\naccount, of what these profits consisted.\n\nMr. Steele informs us, that his superintendant had obliged him to hire\nall his holing at 3 l. currency, or 2 l. 2s. 10d. sterling per\nacre. He was very much displeased at these repeated charges; and then it\nwas, that he put his second question to trial, as I have before related,\nviz. whether he could not obtain the labour of his Negroes by voluntary\nmeans, instead of by the old method by violence. He made, therefore, an\nattempt to introduce task-work, or labour with an expected premium for\nextraordinary efforts, upon his estates. He gave his Negroes therefore a\nsmall pecuniary reward over and above the usual allowances, and the\nconsequence was, as he himself says, that \"the _poorest, feeblest_, and\nby character _the most indolent_ Negroes of the whole gang, cheerfully\nperformed the holing of his land, generally said to be the most\nlaborious work, for _less than a fourth part_ of the stated price paid\nto the undertakers for holing.\" This experiment I have detailed in\nanother place. After this he continued the practice of task-work or\npremium. He describes the operation of such a system upon the minds of\nhis Negroes in the following words: \"According to the vulgar mode of\ngoverning Negro-slaves, they feel only the desponding fear of punishment\nfor doing less than they ought, without being sensible that the settled\nallowance of food and clothing is given, and should be accepted, as a\nreward for doing well, while in task-work the expectation of winning the\nreward, and the fear of losing it, have a double operation to exert\ntheir endeavours.\" Mr. Steele was also benefited again in another point\nof view by the new practice which he had introduced. \"He was clearly\nconvinced, that saving time, by doing in one day as much as would\notherwise require three days, was _worth more than double the premium_,\nthe _timely effects_ on vegetation _being critical_.\" He found also to\nhis satisfaction, that \"during all the operations under the premium\nthere were _no disorders, no crowding to the sick-house_, as before.\"\n\nI have now to make my remarks upon this account. It shows us clearly how\nMr. Steele made a part of his profits. These profits consisted first of\na _saving of expense_ in his husbandry, which saving _was not made by\nothers_. He had his land holed _at one-fourth_ of the usual rate. Let us\napply this to all the other operations of husbandry, such as weeding,\ndeep hoeing, &c. in a large farm of nearly eight hundred acres, like\nhis, and we shall see how considerable the savings would be in one\nyear. His Negroes again did not counterfeit sickness as before, in order\nto be excused from labour, but rather wished to labour in order to\nobtain the reward. There was therefore no crowding to the hospitals.\nThis constituted a _second source of saving_; for they who were in the\nhospitals were maintained by Mr. Steele without earning any thing, while\nthey who were working in the field left to their master in their work,\nwhen they went home at night, a value equal at least to that which they\nhad received from him for their day's labour. But there was another\nsaving of equal importance, which Mr. Steele calls a saving of _time_,\nbut which he might with more propriety have called a saving of _season_.\nThis saving of season, he says, was worth _more than double the\npremium_; and so it might easily have been. There are soils, every\nfarmer knows, which are so constituted, that if you miss your day, you\nmiss your season; and, if you miss your season, you lose probably half\nyour crop. The saving, therefore, of the season, by having a whole crop\ninstead of half an one, was _a third source of saving of money_. Now let\nus put all these savings together, and they will constitute a great\nsaving or profit; for as these savings were made by Mr. Steele in\nconsequence of _his new plan_, and _were therefore not made by others_,\nthey constituted an _extraordinary_ profit to him; or they added to the\nprofit, whatever it might have been, which he used to receive from the\nestate before his new plan was put in execution.\n\nBut I discover other ways in which Mr. Steele was benefited, as I\nadvance in the perusal of his writings. It was impossible to overlook\nthe following passage: \"Now,\" says he (alluding to his new system),\n\"every species of provisions raised on the plantations, or bought from\nthe merchants, is charged at the market-price to the copyhold-store, and\ndischarged by what has been paid on the several accounts of every\nindividual bond-slave; whereas for all those species heretofore, I never\nsaw in any plantation-book of my estates any account of what became of\nthem, or how they were disposed of, nor of their value, other than in\nthese concise words, _they were given in allowance to the Negroes and\nstock_. Every year, for six years past, this great plantation has\nbought several hundred bushels of corn, and was scanty in all\nground-provisions, our produce always falling short. This year, 1790,\n_since the establishment of copyholders, though several less acres were\nplanted_ last year in Guinea corn than usual, yet we have been able to\nsell _several hundred bushels_ at a high price, and _we have still a\ngreat stock in hand_. I can place this saving to no other account, than\nthat there is now an exact account kept by all produce being paid as\ncash to the bond-slaves; and also as all our watchmen are obliged to pay\nfor all losses that happen on their watch, they have found it their\ninterest to look well to their charge; and consequently that we have\nhad much less stolen from us than before this new government took\nplace.\"\n\nHere then we have seen _another considerable source of saving_ to Mr.\nSteele, viz. that _he was not obliged to purchase any corn for his\nslaves as formerly_. My readers will be able to judge better of this\nsaving, when I inform them of what has been the wretched policy of many\nof our planters in this department of their concerns. Look over their\nfarming memoranda, and you will see _sugar, sugar, sugar_, in every\npage; but you may turn over leaf after leaf, before you will find the\nwords _provision ground_ for their slaves. By means of this wretched\npolicy, slaves have often suffered most grievously. Some of them have\nbeen half-starved. Starvation, too, has brought on disorders which have\nultimately terminated in their death. Hence their masters have suffered\nlosses, besides the expense incurred in buying what they ought to have\nraised upon their own estates, and this perhaps at a dear market: and in\nthis wretched predicament Mr. Steele appears to have been himself when\nhe first went to the estate. His slaves, he tells us, had been reduced\nin number by bad management. Even for six years afterwards he had been\nobliged to buy several hundred bushels of corn; but in the year 1790 he\nhad sold several hundred bushels at a high price, and had still a great\nstock on hand. And to what was all this owing? Not to an exact account\nkept at the store (for some may have so misunderstood Mr. Steele); for\nhow could an exact account kept there, have occasioned an increase in\nthe produce of the earth? but, as Mr. Steele himself says, _to the\nestablishment of his copyholders_, or to the _alteration of the\ncondition_ of his slaves. His slaves did not only three times more work\nthan before, in consequence of the superior industry he had excited\namong them, but, by so doing, they were enabled to put the corn into the\nearth three times more quickly than before, or they were so much\nforwarder in their other work, that they were enabled to sow it at the\ncritical moment, or so as _to save the season_, and thus secure a full\ncrop, or a larger crop on a less number of acres, than was before raised\nupon a greater. The copyholders, therefore, were the persons who\nincreased the produce of the earth; but the exact account kept at the\nstore prevented the produce from being misapplied as formerly. It could\nno longer be put down in the general expression of \"given in allowances\nto the Negroes and the stock;\" but it was put down to the copyholder,\nand to him only, who received it. Thus Mr. Steele saved the purchase of\na great part of the provisions for his slaves. He had formerly a great\ndeal to buy for them, but now nothing. On the other hand, he had to\nsell; but, as his slaves were made, according to the new system, to\n_maintain themselves_, he had now _the whole produce of his estate to_\n_dispose of_. The circumstance therefore of having nothing to buy, but\nevery thing to sell, constituted another source of his profits.\n\nWhat the other particular profits of Mr. Steele were I can no where\nfind, neither can I find what were his particular expenses; so as to be\nenabled to strike the balance in his favour. Happily, however, Mr.\nSteele has done this for us himself, though he has not furnished us with\nthe items on either side.--He says that \"from the year 1773 to 1779 (he\narrived in Barbadoes in 1780), his stock had been so much reduced by ill\nmanagement and wasteful economy, that the annual average neat clearance\nwas little more than _one and a quarter_ per cent. on the purchase. In a\nsecond period of four years, in consequence of the exertion of an honest\nand able manager, (though with a further reduction of the stock, and\nincluding the loss from the great hurricane,) the annual average income\nwas brought to clear _a little above two_ per cent.; but in a third\nperiod of three years from 1784 to 1786 inclusive, _since the new mode\nof governing the Negroes_, (besides increasing the stock, and laying out\nlarge sums annually in adding necessary works, and in repairs of the\ndamages by the great hurricane,) the estate has cleared very nearly\n_four and a quarter_ per cent.; that is, its annual average clearance in\neach of these three periods, was in this proportion; for every 100 l.\nannually cleared in the first period the annual average clearance in the\nsecond period was 158 l. 10s., and in the third period was 345 l.\n6s. 8d.\" This is the statement given by Mr. Steele, and a most\nimportant one it is; for if we compare what the estate had cleared in\nthe first, with what it had cleared in the last of these periods, and\nhave recourse to figures, we shall find that Mr. Steele had _more than\ntripled_ the income of it, in consequence of _his new management_,\nduring his residence in Barbadoes. And this is in fact what he says\nhimself in words at full length, in his answer to the 17th question\nproposed to him by the committee of the Privy-council on the affairs of\nthe slave trade. \"In a plantation,\" says he, \"of 200 slaves in June\n1780, consisting of 90 men, 82 women, 56 boys, and 60 girls, though\nunder the exertions of an able and honest manager, there were only 15\nbirths, and no less than 57 deaths, in three years and three months. An\nalteration was made in the mode of governing the slaves. The whips were\ntaken from all the white servants. All arbitrary punishments were\nabolished, and all offences were tried and sentence passed by a Negro\ncourt. In four years and three months after this change of government,\nthere were 44 births, and only 41 deaths, of which ten deaths were of\nsuperannuated men and women, some above 80 years old. But in the same\ninterval the annual neat clearance of the estate was _above three times\nmore than it had been for ten years before!!!_\"\n\nDr. Dickson, the editor of Mr. Steele, mentions these profits also, and\nin the same terms, and connects them with an eulogium on Mr. Steele,\nwhich is worthy of our attention. \"Mr. Steele,\" says he, \"saw that the\nNegroes, like all other human beings, were to be stimulated to permanent\nexertion only by a sense of their own interests in providing for their\nown wants and those of their offspring. He therefore tried _rewards_,\nwhich immediately roused the most indolent to exertion. His experiments\nended in _regular wages_, which the industry he had excited among his\nwhole gang enabled him to pay. Here was a natural, efficient, and\nprofitable reciprocity of interests. His people became contented; his\nmind was freed from that perpetual vexation and that load of anxiety,\nwhich are inseparable from the vulgar system, and in little more than\nfour years the annual neat clearance of his property _was more than\ntripled_.\" Again, in another part of the work, \"Mr. Steele's plan may no\ndoubt receive some improvements, which his great age obliged him to\ndecline\"--\"but it is perfect, as far as it goes. _To advance above 300\nfield-negroes, who had never before moved without the whip, to a state\nnearly resembling that of contented, honest and industrious servants,\nand, after paying for their labour, to triple in a few years the annual\nneat clearance of the estate_,--these, I say, were great achievements\nfor an aged man in an untried field of improvement, pre-occupied by\ninveterate vulgar prejudice. He has indeed accomplished all that was\nreally doubtful or difficult in the undertaking, and perhaps all that is\nat present desirable either for owner or slave; for he has ascertained\nas a fact, what was before only known to the learned as a theory, and to\npractical men as a paradox, that _the paying of slaves for their labour\ndoes actually produce a very great profit to their owners_.\"\n\nI have now proved (_as far as the plan[15] of Mr. Steele is concerned_)\nmy third proposition, or _the probability that emancipation would\npromote the interests of those who should adopt it_; but as I know of no\nother estate similarly circumstanced with that of Mr. Steele, that is,\nwhere emancipation has been tried, and where a detailed result of it has\nbeen made known, I cannot confirm it by other similar examples. I must\nhave recourse therefore to some new species of proof. Now it is an old\nmaxim, as old as the days of Pliny and Columella, and confirmed by Dr.\nAdam Smith, and all the modern writers on political economy, that _the\nlabour of free men is cheaper than the labour of slaves_. If therefore I\nshould be able to show that this maxim would be true, if applied to all\nthe operations and demands of West Indian agriculture, I should be able\nto establish my proposition on a new ground: for it requires no great\nacuteness to infer, that, if it be cheaper to employ free men than\nslaves in the cultivation of our islands, emancipation would be a\nprofitable undertaking there.\n\nI shall show, then, that the old maxim just mentioned is true, when\napplied to the case in our own islands, first, by establishing the fact,\nthat _free men_, people of colour, in the East Indies, are employed in\n_precisely the same concerns_ (the cultivation of the cane and the\nmaking of sugar) as the slaves in the West, and that they are employed\n_at a cheaper rate_. The testimony of Henry Botham, Esq. will be quite\nsufficient for this point. That gentleman resided for some time in the\nEast Indies, where he became acquainted with the business of a sugar\nestate. In the year 1770 he quitted the East for the West. His object\nwas to settle in the latter part of the world, if it should be found\ndesirable so to do. For this purpose he visited all the West Indian\nislands, both English and French, in about two years. He became during\nthis time a planter, though he did not continue long in this situation;\nand he superintended also Messrs. Bosanquets' and J. Fatio's\nsugar-plantation in their partners' absence. Finding at length the\nunprofitable way in which the West Indian planters conducted their\nconcerns, he returned to the East Indies in 1776, and established\nsugar-works at Bencoolen on his own account. Being in London in the year\n1789, when a committee of privy council was sitting to examine into the\nquestion of the slave trade, he delivered a paper to the board on the\nmode of cultivating a sugar plantation in the East Indies; and this\npaper being thought of great importance, he was summoned afterwards in\n1791 by a committee of the House of Commons to be examined personally\nupon it.\n\nIt is very remarkable that the very first sentence in this paper\nannounced the fact at once, that \"sugar, better and _cheaper_ than that\nin the West Indian islands, was produced _by free men_.\"\n\nMr. Botham then explained the simple process of making sugar in the\nEast. \"A proprietor, generally a Dutchman, used to let his estate, say\n300 acres or more, with proper buildings upon it, to a Chinese, who\nlived upon it and superintended it, and who re-let it to free men in\nparcels of 50 or 60 acres on condition that they should plant it in\ncanes for so much for every pecul, 133 lbs., of sugar produced. This\nsuperintendant hired people from the adjacent villages to take off his\ncrop. One lot of task-men with their carts and buffaloes cut the canes,\ncarried them to the mill, and ground them. A second set boiled them, and\na third clayed and basketed them for market at so much per pecul. Thus\nthe renter knew with certainty what every pecul would cost him, and he\nincurred no unnecessary expense; for, when the crop was over, the\ntask-men returned home. By dividing the labour in this manner, it was\nbetter and cheaper done.\"\n\nMr. Botham detailed next the improved method of making sugar in Batavia,\nwhich we have not room to insert here. We may just state, however, that\nthe persons concerned in it never made spirits on the sugar estates. The\nmolasses and skimmings were sent for, sale to Batavia, where one\ndistillery might buy the produce of a hundred estates. Here, again, was\na vast saving, says Mr. Botham, \"there was not, as in the West Indies, a\n_distillery_ for _each estate_.\"\n\nHe then proceeded to make a comparison between the agricultural system\nof the two countries. \"The cane was cultivated _to the utmost\nperfection_ in Batavia, whereas the culture of it in the West Indies was\nbut _in its infancy. The hoe was scarcely used_ in the East, whereas it\nwas almost _the sole implement_ in the West. The _plough was used\ninstead of it in the East_, as far as it could be done. Young canes\nthere were kept also often ploughed as a weeding, and the hoe was kept\nto weed round the plant when very young; but of this there was little\nneed, if the land had been sufficiently ploughed. When the cane was\nready to be earthed up, it was done by a _sort of shovel_ made for the\npurpose. _Two persons_ with this instrument would earth up more canes in\na day than _ten Negroes_ with hoes. The cane-roots were also _ploughed\nup_ in the East, whereas they were _dug up with the severest exertion_\nin the West. Many alterations,\" says Mr. Botham, \"are to be made, and\nexpenses and human labour lessened in the West. _Having experienced the\ndifference of labourers for profit and labourers from force_, I can\nassert, that _the savings by the former are very considerable_.\"\n\nHe then pointed out other defects in the West Indian management, and\ntheir remedies. \"I am of opinion,\" says he, \"that the West Indian\nplanter should for his own interest give more labour to beast and less\nto man. A larger portion of his estate ought to be in pasture. When\npracticable, canes should be carried to the mill, and cane tops and\ngrass to the stock, in waggons. The custom of making a hard-worked Negro\nget a bundle of grass twice a day should be abolished, and in short a\n_total change take place in the miserable management in our West Indian\nIslands_. By these means following as near as possible the East Indian\nmode, and consolidating the distilleries, I do suppose our sugar-islands\nmight be better worked than they now are by _two-thirds_ or indeed\n_one-half_ of the present force. Let it be considered how much labour is\nlost by the persons _overseeing the forced labourer_, which is saved\nwhen he works _for his own profit_. I have stated with the strictest\nveracity a plain matter of fact, that sugar estates can _be worked\ncheaper by free men than by slaves_[16].\"\n\nI shall now show, that the old maxim, which has been mentioned, is true,\nwhen applied to the case of our West Indian islands, by establishing a\nfact of a very different kind, viz. that the slaves in the West Indies\ndo much more work in a given time when _they work for themselves_, than\nwhen _they work for their masters_. But how, it will be said, do you\nprove, by establishing this fact, that it would be cheaper for our\nplanters to employ free men than slaves? I answer thus: I maintain that,\n_while the slaves are working for themselves_, they are to be\nconsidered, indeed that they are, _bon\u00e2 fide, free labourers_. In the\nfirst place, they never have a driver with them on any of these\noccasions; and, in the second place, _having all their earnings to\nthemselves_, they have that stimulus within them to excite industry,\nwhich is only known _to free men_. What is it, I ask, which gives birth\nto industry in any part of the world, seeing that labour is not\nagreeable to man, but the stimulus arising from the hope of gain? What\nmakes an English labourer do more work in the day than a slave, but the\nstimulus arising from the knowledge, that what he earns is _for himself\nand not for another_? What, again, makes an English labourer do much\nmore work _by the piece_ than by _the day_, but the stimulus arising\nfrom the knowledge that he may gain more by the former than by the\nlatter mode of work? Just so is the West Indian slave situated, when _he\nis working for himself_, that is, when he knows _that what he earns is\nfor his own use_. He has then all the stimulus of a free man, and he is,\ntherefore, _during such work_ (though unhappily no longer) really, and\nin effect, and to all intents and purposes, as much _a free labourer_ as\nany person in any part of the globe. But if he be a free man, while he\nis working for himself, and if in that capacity he does twice or thrice\nmore work than when he works for his master, it follows, that it would\nbe cheaper for his master to employ him as a free labourer, or that the\nlabour of free men in the West Indies would be cheaper than the labour\nof slaves.\n\nThat West Indian slaves, when they work for themselves, do much more in\na given time than when they work for their masters, is a fact so\nnotorious in the West Indies, that no one who has been there would deny\nit. Look at Long's History of Jamaica, The Privy Council Report,\nGaisford's Essay on the good Effects of the Abolition of the Slave\nTrade, and other books. Let us hear also what Dr. Dickson, the editor\nof Mr. Steele, and who resided so many years in Barbadoes, says on this\nsubject, for what he says is so admirably expressed that I cannot help\nquoting it. \"The planters,\" says he, \"do not take the right way to make\nhuman beings put forth their strength. They apply main force where they\nshould apply moral motives, and punishments alone where rewards should\nbe judiciously intermixed. They first beslave their poor people with\ntheir cursed whip, and then stand and wonder at the tremour of their\nnerves, and the laxity of their muscles. And yet, strange to tell,\n_those very men affirm, and affirm truly_, that a slave will do more\nwork for himself _in an afternoon_ than he can be made to do for his\nowner _in a whole day or more_!\" And did not the whole Assembly of\nGrenada, as we collect from the famous speech of Mr. Pitt on the Slave\nTrade in 1791, affirm the same thing? \"He (Mr. Pitt) would show,\" he\nsaid, \"the futility of the argument of his honourable friend. He (his\nhonourable friend) had himself admitted, that it was in the power of the\ncolonies to correct the various abuses by which the Negro population was\nrestrained. But they could not do this without _improving the condition\nof their slaves_, without making them _approximate towards the rank of\ncitizens_, without giving them _some little interest in their labour_,\nwhich would occasion them to work _with the energy of men_. But now the\nAssembly of Grenada had themselves stated, that, _though_ the _Negroes\nwere allowed the afternoon of only one day in every week, they would do\nas much work in that afternoon when employed for their own benefit, as\nin the whole day when employed in their masters' service_. Now after\nthis confession the House might burn all his calculations relative to\nthe Negro population; for if this population had not quite reached the\ndesirable state which he had pointed out, this confession had proved\nthat further supplies were not wanted. A Negro, _if he worked for\nhimself, could do double work_. By an improvement then in the mode of\nlabour, the work in the islands could be doubled. But if so, what would\nbecome of the argument of his honourable friend? for then only half the\nnumber of the present labourers were necessary.\"\n\nBut the fact, that the slaves in the West Indies do much more work for\nthemselves in a given time than when they work for their masters, may be\nestablished almost arithmetically, if we will take the trouble of\ncalculating from authentic documents which present themselves on the\nsubject. It is surprising, when we look into the evidence examined by\nthe House of Commons on the subject of the Slave Trade, to find how\nlittle a West Indian slave really does, when he works for his master;\nand this is confessed equally by the witnesses on both sides of the\nquestion. One of them (Mr. Francklyn) says, that a labouring man could\nnot get his bread in Europe if he worked no harder than a Negro.\nAnother (Mr. Tobin), that no Negro works like a day-labourer in\nEngland. Another (Sir John Dalling), that the general work of Negroes is\nnot to be called labour. A fourth (Dr. Jackson), that an English\nlabourer does three times as much work as a Negro in the West Indies.\nNow how are these expressions to be reconciled with the common notions\nin England of Negro labour? for \"to work like a Negro\" is a common\nphrase, which is understood to convey the meaning, that the labour of\nthe Negroes is the most severe and intolerable that is known. One of the\nwitnesses, however, just mentioned explains the matter. \"The hardship,\"\nsays he, \"of Negro field-labour is more in the _mode_ than in the\n_quantity_ done. The slave, seeing no end of his labour, stands over the\nwork, and only throws the hoe to avoid the lash. He appears to work\nwithout actually working.\" The truth is, that a Negro, having no\ninterest in his work while working for his master, will work only while\nthe whip is upon him. I can no where make out the clear net annual\nearnings of a field Negro on a sugar plantation to come up to 8 l.\nsterling. Now what does he earn in the course of a year when he is\nworking for himself? I dare not repeat what some of the witnesses for\nthe planters stated to the House of Commons, when representing the\nenviable condition of the slaves in the West Indies; for this would be\nto make him earn more for himself _in one day_ than for his master _in a\nweek_. Let us take then the lowest sum mentioned in the Book of\nEvidence. This is stated to be 14d. sterling per week; and 14d.\nsterling per week would make 3 l. sterling per year. But how many days\nin the week does he work when he makes such annual earnings? The most\ntime, which any of the witnesses gives to a field slave for his own\nprivate concerns, is every Sunday, and also every Saturday afternoon in\nthe week, besides three holidays in the year. But this is far from being\nthe general account. Many of them say that he has only Sunday to\nhimself; and others, that even Sunday is occasionally trespassed upon by\nhis master. It appears, also, that even where the afternoon is given\nhim, it is only out of crop-time. Now let us take into the account the\ntime lost by slaves in going backwards and forwards to their\nprovision-grounds; for though some of these are described as being only\na stone's throw from their huts, others are described as being one,\nand two, and three, and even four miles off; and let us take into the\naccount also, that Sunday is, by the confession of all, the Negro market\nday, on which alone they can dispose of their own produce, and that the\nmarket itself may be from one to ten or fifteen miles from their homes,\nand that they who go there cannot be working in their gardens at the\nsame time, and we shall find that there cannot be on an average more\nthan a clear three quarters of a day in the week, which they can call\ntheir own, and in which they can work for themselves. But call it a\nwhole day, if you please, and you will find that the slave does for\nhimself in this one day more than a third of what he does for his master\nin six, or that he works _more than three times harder_ when _he works\nfor himself_ than when _he works for his master_.\n\nI have now shown, first by the evidence of Mr. Botham, and secondly by\nthe fact of Negroes earning more in a given time when they work in their\nown gardens, than when they work in their master's service, that the old\nmaxim \"of _its being cheaper to employ free men than slaves_,\" is true,\nwhen applied to the _operations and demands of West Indian agriculture_.\nBut if it be cheaper to employ free men than slaves in the West Indies,\nthen they, who should emancipate their Negroes there, would _promote\ntheir interest by so doing_. \"But hold!\" says an objector, \"we allow\nthat their successors would be benefited, but not the _emancipators\nthemselves_. These would have a great sacrifice to make. Their slaves\nare worth so much money at this moment; but they would lose all this\nvalue, if they were to set them free.\" I reply, and indeed I have all\nalong affirmed, that it is not proposed to emancipate the slaves _at\nonce_, but to prepare them for emancipation _in a course of years_. Mr.\nSteele did not make his slaves _entirely free_. They were _copyhold-bond\nslaves_. They were still _his freehold property_: and they would, if he\nhad lived, have continued so for many years. They therefore, who should\nemancipate, would lose nothing of the value of their slaves, so long as\nthey brought them only to the door of liberty, but did not allow them to\npass through it. But suppose they were to allow them to pass through it\nand thus admit them to freedom, they would lose nothing by so doing; for\nthey would not admit them to freedom till _after a certain period of\nyears, during which_ I contend that the _value of every individual\nslave_ would have been _reimbursed_ to them from _the increased income\nof their estates_. Mr. Steele, as we have seen, _more than tripled_ the\nvalue of his income during his experiment: I believe that he more than\nquadrupled it; for he says, that he more than tripled it _besides\nincreasing his stock_, and _laying out large sums annually in adding\nnecessary works_, and _in repairs of the damage by the great hurricane_.\nSuppose then a West India estate to yield at this moment a nett income\nof 500 l. per annum, this income would be increased, according to Mr.\nSteele's experience, to somewhere about 1700 l. per annum. Would not,\nthen, the surplus beyond the original 500 l., viz. 1200 l. per annum,\nbe sufficient to reimburse the proprietor in a few years for the value\nof every slave which he had when he began his plan of emancipation? But\nhe would be reimbursed again, that is, (twice over on the whole for\nevery individual slave,) from a new source, viz. _the improved value of\nhis land_. It is a fact well known in the United States, that a certain\nquantity of land, or farm, in full cultivation by free men, will fetch\ntwice more money than the same quantity of land, similarly\ncircumstanced, in full cultivation by slaves. Let us suppose now that\nthe slaves at present on any West Indian plantation are worth about as\nmuch as the land with the buildings upon it, to which they are attached,\nand that the land with the buildings upon it would rise to double its\nformer value when cultivated by free men, it follows that the land and\nbuildings alone would be worth as much then, that is, when worked by\nfree labourers, as the land, buildings, and slaves together are worth at\nthe present time.\n\nI have now, I think, pretty well canvassed the subject, and I shall\ntherefore hasten to a conclusion. And first, I ask the West Indians,\nwhether they think that they will be allowed to carry on their present\ncruel system, the arbitrary use of the whip and the chain, and the\nbrutal debasement of their fellow-creatures, _for ever_. I say, No; I\nentertain better hopes of the humanity and justice of the British\npeople. I am sure that they will interfere, and that when they _once\ntake up the cause_, they _will never abandon it till they have obtained\ntheir object_. And what is it, after all, that I have been proposing in\nthe course of the preceding pages? two things only, viz. that the laws\nrelating to the slaves may be revised by the British parliament, so that\nthey, may be made (as it was always intended) _to accord with, and not\nto be repugnant to_, the principles of the British constitution, and\nthat, when such a revision shall have taken place, the slaves may be put\ninto _a state of preparation for emancipation_; and for such an\nemancipation only as may be compatible with the joint interests of the\nmaster and the slave. Is there any thing unreasonable in this\nproposition? Is it unreasonable to desire that those laws should be\nrepealed, which are contrary to the laws of God, or that the Africans\nand their descendants, who have the shape, image, intellect, feelings,\nand affections of men, should be treated as human beings?\n\nThe measure then, which I have been proposing, is _not unreasonable_. I\ntrust it _would not be injurious_ to the interests of the West Indians\nthemselves. These are at present, it is said, in great distress; and so\nthey have been for years; and so they will still be (and moreover they\nwill be getting worse and worse) _so long as they continue slavery_. How\ncan such a wicked, such an ill-framed system succeed? Has not the\nAlmighty in his moral government of the world stamped a character upon\nhuman actions, and given such a turn to their operations, that the\nbalance should be ultimately in favour of virtue? Has he not taken from\nthose, who act wickedly, the power of discerning the right path? or has\nhe not so confounded their faculties, that they are for ever frustrating\ntheir own schemes? It is only to know the practice of our planters to be\nassured, that it will bring on difficulty after difficulty, and loss\nafter loss, till it will end in ruin. If a man were to sit down and to\ntry to invent a ruinous system of agriculture, could he devise one more\nto his mind than that which they have been in the habit of using? Let us\nlook at some of the more striking parts of this system. The first that\nstares us in the face, is the unnatural and destructive practice of\n_forced labour_. Here we see men working without any rational stimulus\nto elicit their exertions, and therefore they must be followed by\ndrivers with whips in their hands. Well might it be said by Mr. Botham\nto the Committees of Privy-council and House of Commons, \"Let it be\nconsidered, how much labour is lost by the persons overseeing the forced\nlabourer, which is saved when he works for his own profit;\" and,\nnotwithstanding all the vigilance and whipping of these drivers, I have\nproved that the slaves do more for themselves in an afternoon, than in a\nwhole day when they work for their masters. It was doubtless the\nconviction that _forced labour was unprofitable_, as well as that there\nwould be less of human suffering, which made Mr. Steele take away the\nwhips from his drivers, as _the very first step necessary_ in his\nimproved system, or as the _sine qu\u00e2 non_ without which such a system\ncould not properly be begun; and did not this very measure _alter the\nface of his affairs in point of profit in three years after it had been\nput into operation_? And here it must be observed, that, if ever\nemancipation should be begun by our planters, this must be (however they\nmay dislike to part with arbitrary power) as much a first step with them\nas it was with Mr. Steele. _Forced labour_ stands at the head of the\ncatalogue of those nuisances belonging to slavery, which oppose the\nplanter's gain. It must be removed before any thing else can be done.\nSee what mischiefs it leads to, independently of its want of profit. It\nis impossible that forced labour can be kept up from day to day without\ninjury to the constitution of the slaves; and if their health is\ninjured, the property of their masters must be injured also. Forced\nlabour, again, sends many of them to the sick-houses. Here is, at any\nrate, a loss of their working time. But it drives them also occasionally\nto run away, and sometimes to destroy themselves. Here again is a loss\nof their working time and of property into the bargain. _Forced labour_,\nthen, is one of those striking parts in the West Indian husbandry, in\nwhich we see a _constant source of loss_ to those who adopt it; and may\nwe not speak, and yet with truth, as unfavourably of some of the other\nstriking parts in the same system? What shall we say, first, to that\ninjurious disproportion of the articles of croppage with the wants of\nthe estates, which makes little or no provision of food for the\nlabourers (_the very first to be cared for_), but leaves these to be fed\nby articles to be bought three thousand miles off in another country,\nlet the markets there be ever so high, or the prices ever so\nunfavourable, at the time? What shall we say, again, to that obstinate\nand ruinous attachment to old customs, in consequence of which even\nacknowledged improvements are almost forbidden to be received? How\ngenerally has the introduction of the plough been opposed in the West\nIndies, though both the historians of Jamaica have recommended the use\nof it, and though it has been proved that _one plough_ with _two sets of\nhorses_ to relieve each other, would turn up as much land _in a day, as\none hundred Negroes_ could with their hoes! Is not the hoe also\ncontinued in earthing up the canes there, when Mr. Botham proved, more\nthan thirty years ago, that _two_ men would do more with the East Indian\nshovel at that sort of work in a day, than _ten_ Negroes with the former\ninstrument? So much for _unprofitable instruments_ of husbandry; a few\nwords now on _unprofitable modes of employment_. It seems, first, little\nless than infatuation, to make Negroes carry baskets of dung upon their\nheads, basket after basket, to the field. I do not mention this so much\nas an intolerable hardship upon those who have to perform it, as an\nimprovident waste of strength and time. Why are not horses, or mules, or\noxen, and carts or other vehicles of convenience, used oftener on such\noccasions? I may notice also that cruel and most disadvantageous mode of\nemployment of making Negroes collect grass for the cattle, by picking it\nby the hand blade by blade. Are no artificial grasses to be found in our\nislands, and is the existence of the scythe unknown there? But it is of\nno use to dwell longer upon this subject. The whole system is a ruinous\none from the beginning to the end. And from whence does such a system\narise? It has its origin in _slavery_ alone. It is practised no where\nbut in the land of ignorance and slavery. Slavery indeed, or rather the\ndespotism which supports slavery, has no compassion, and it is one of\nits characteristics _never to think of sparing the sinews of the\nwretched creature called a slave_. Hence it is slow to adopt helps, with\nwhich a beneficent Providence has furnished us, by giving to man an\ninventive faculty for easing his burthens, or by submitting the beasts\nof the field to his dominion and his use, and it flies to expedients\nwhich are contrary to nature and reason. How then can such a system ever\nanswer? Were an English farmer to have recourse to such a system, he\nwould not be able to pay his rent for a single year. If the planters\nthen are in distress, it is their own fault. They may, however, thank\nthe abolitionists that they are not worse off than they are at present.\nThe abolition of the slave trade, by cutting off the purchase of new\nslaves, has cut off one cause of their ruin[17]; and it is only the\nabolition _of slavery which can yet save them_. Had the planters, when\nthe slave trade was abolished, taken immediate measures to meet the\nchange; had they then revised their laws and substituted better; had\nthey then put their slaves into a state of preparation for emancipation,\nin what a different, that is, desirable situation would they have been\nat this moment! In fact, _nothing can save them, but the abolition of\nslavery on a wise and prudent plan_. They can no more expect, without\nit, to meet the present low prices of colonial produce, than the British\nfarmer can meet the present low prices of grain, unless he can have an\nabatement of rent, tithe, and taxation, and unless his present poor\nrates can be diminished also. Take away, however, from the planters the\nuse and practice of slavery, and the hour of _their regeneration_ would\nbe begun. Can we doubt, that Providence would then bless their\nendeavours, and that _salvation_ from their difficulties would be their\nportion in the end?\n\nIt has appeared, I hope, by this time, that what I have been proposing\nis not unreasonable, and that, so far from being injurious to the\ninterests of the planters, it would be highly advantageous to them. I\nshall now show, that I do not ask for the introduction of a more humane\nsystem into our Colonies _at a time when it would be improper to grant\nit_; or that no fair objection can be raised against the _present\nmoment_, as _the fit era_ from whence the measures in contemplation\nshould commence. There was, indeed, a time when the planters might have\noffered something like an excuse for the severity of their conduct\ntowards their slaves, on the plea that the greater part of them then in\nthe colonies were _African-born_ or _strangers_, and that cargoes were\nconstantly pouring in, one after the other, consisting of the same sort\nof beings; or of _stubborn ferocious people, never accustomed to work,\nwhose spirits it was necessary to break_, and _whose necks to force down\nto the yoke_; and that this could only be effected by the whip, the\nchain, the iron collar, and other instruments of the kind. But _now_ no\nsuch plea can be offered. It is now sixteen years since the slave trade\nwas abolished by England, and it is therefore to be presumed, that no\nnew slaves have been imported into the British colonies within that\nperiod. The slaves, therefore, who are there at this day, must consist\neither of Africans, whose spirits must have been long ago broken, or of\nCreoles born in the cradle and brought up in the trammels of slavery.\nWhat argument then can be produced for the continuation of a barbarous\ndiscipline there? And we are very glad to find that two gentlemen, both\nof whom we have had occasion to quote before, bear us out in this\nremark. Mr. Steele, speaking of some of the old cruel laws of Barbadoes,\napplies them to the case before us in these words:--\"As, according to\nLigon's account, there were not above two-thirds of the island in\nplantations in the year 1650, we must suppose that in the year 1688 the\ngreat number of _African-born_ slaves brought into the plantations in\nchains, and compelled to labour by the terrors of corporal punishment,\nmight have made it appear necessary to enact a temporary law so harsh as\nthe statute No. 82; but when the _great majority_ of the Negroes were\nbecome _vernacular, born in the island, naturalized by language_, and\n_familiarised by custom_, did not _policy_ as well as humanity require:\nthem _to be put under milder conditions_, such as were granted to the\nslaves of our Saxon ancestors?\" Colonel Malenfant speaks the same\nsentiments. In defending his plan, which he offered to the French\nGovernment for St. Domingo in 1814, against the vulgar prejudice, that\n\"where you employ Negroes you must of necessity use slavery,\" he\ndelivers himself thus:--\"[18]If all the Negroes on a plantation had not\nbeen more than six months out of Africa, or if they had the same ideas\nconcerning an independent manner of life as the Indians or the savages\nof Guiana, I should consider my plan to be impracticable. I should then\nsay that coercion would be necessary: but ninety-nine out of every\nhundred Negroes in St. Domingo are aware that they cannot obtain\nnecessaries without work. They know that it is their duty to work, and\nthey are even desirous of working; but the remembrance of their cruel\nsufferings in the time of slavery renders them suspicious.\" We may\nconclude, then, that if a cruel discipline was _not necessary_ in the\nyears 1790 and 1794, to which these gentlemen allude, when there must\nhave been _some thousands of newly imported Africans_ both in St.\nDomingo and in the English colonies, it cannot be necessary _now_, when\nthere have been no importations into the latter for _fifteen years_.\nThere can be no excuse, then, for the English planters for not altering\ntheir system, and this _immediately_. It is, on the other hand, a great\nreproach to them, considering the quality and character of their slaves,\n_that they should not of themselves have come forward on the subject\nbefore this time_.\n\nSeeing then that nothing has been done where it ought, it is the duty of\nthe abolitionists to _resume their labours_. If through the medium of\nthe abolition of the slave trade they have not accomplished, as they\nexpected, the whole of their object, they have no alternative but to\nresort to _other measures_, or to attempt by constitutional means, under\nthat Legislature which has already sanctioned their efforts, the\nmitigation of the cruel treatment of the Negroes, with the ultimate view\nof extinguishing, in due time and in a suitable manner, the slavery\nitself. Nor ought any time to be lost in making such an attempt; for it\nis a melancholy fact, that there is scarcely any increase of the slave\npopulation in our islands at the present moment. What other proof need\nwe require _of the severity of the slavery there, and of the necessity\nof its mitigation?_ Severe punishments, want of sufficient food, labour\nextracted by the whip, and a system of prostitution, conspire, _almost\nas much as ever_, to make inroads upon the constitutions of the slaves,\nand to prevent their increase. And let it be remembered here, that any\nformer defect of this kind was supplied by importations; but that\nimportations are _now unlawful_. Unless, therefore, the abolitionists\ninterfere, and that soon, our West Indian planters may come to\nParliament and say, \"We have now tried your experiment. It has not\nanswered. You must therefore give us leave to go again to the coast of\nAfrica for slaves.\" There is also another consideration worthy of the\nattention of the abolitionists, viz. that _a public attempt_ made in\nEngland to procure the abolition of _slavery_ would very much promote\ntheir original object, the cause of the abolition of the slave trade;\nfor foreign courts have greatly doubted our sincerity as to the latter\nmeasure, and have therefore been very backward in giving us their\nassistance in it. If England, say they, abolished the slave trade _from\nmoral motives_, how happens it _that she continues slavery_? But if this\n_public attempt_ were to succeed, then the abolitionists would see their\nwishes in a direct train for completion: for if slavery were to fall in\nthe British islands, this event would occasion death in a given time,\nand without striking any further blow, to the execrable trade in every\npart of the world; because those foreigners, who should continue\nslavery, no longer able to compete in the markets with those who should\nemploy free men, must abandon the slave trade altogether.\n\nBut here perhaps the planters will say, \"What right have the people of\nEngland to interfere with our property, which would be the case if they\nwere to attempt to abolish slavery?\" The people of England might reply,\nthat they have as good a right as you, the planters, have to interfere\nwith that most precious of all property, _the liberty of your slaves_,\nseeing that _you hold them by no right that is not opposed to nature,\nreason, justice, and religion_. The people of England have no desire to\ninterfere with your _property_, but with your _oppression_. It is\nprobable that your property would be improved by the change. But, to\nexamine this right more minutely, I contend, first, that they have\nalways a right to interfere in behalf of humanity and justice wherever\ntheir appeals can be heard. I contend, secondly, that they have a more\nimmediate right to interfere in the present case, because the oppressed\npersons in question, living in the British dominions and under the\nBritish Government, are _their fellow subjects_. I contend again, that\nthey have this right upon the ground that they are giving you, the West\nIndians, _a monopoly_ for their sugar, by buying it from you exclusively\n_at a much dearer rate_ than _they can get it from other quarters_.\nSurely they have a right to say to you, as customers for your produce,\nChange your system and we will continue to deal with you; but if you\nwill not change it, we will buy our sugar elsewhere, or we will not buy\nsugar at all. The East Indian market is open to us, and we prefer sugar\nthat is not stained with blood. Nay, we will petition Parliament to take\noff the surplus duty with which East Indian sugar is loaded on your\naccount. What superior claims have you either upon Parliament or upon\nus, that you should have the preference? As to the East Indians, they\nare as much the subjects of the British empire as yourselves. As to the\nEast India Company, they support all their establishments, both civil\nand military, at their own expense. They come to our Treasury for\nnothing; while you, with naval stations, and an extraordinary military\nforce kept up for no other purpose than to keep in awe an injured\npopulation, and with heavy bounties on the exportation of your sugar,\nput us to such an expense as makes us doubt whether your trade is worth\nhaving on its present terms. They, the East India Company, again, have\nbeen a blessing to the Natives with whom they have been concerned. They\ndistribute an equal system of law and justice to all without respect of\npersons. They dispell the clouds of ignorance, superstition, and\nidolatry, and carry with them civilization and liberty wherever they go.\nYou, on the other hand, have no code of justice but for yourselves. You\n_deny it_ to those who _cannot help themselves_. You _hinder liberty_ by\nyour cruel restrictions on manumission; and dreading the inlet of light,\n_you study to perpetuate ignorance and barbarism_. Which then of the two\ncompetitors has the claim to preference by an English Parliament and an\nEnglish people? It may probably soon become a question with the latter,\nwhether they will consent to pay a million annually more for West India\nsugar than for other of like quality, or, which is the same thing,\nwhether they will allow themselves to be _taxed annually to the amount\nof a million sterling to support West Indian slavery_.\n\nI shall now conclude by saying, that I leave it; and that I recommend\nit, to others to add to the light which I have endeavoured to furnish on\nthis subject, by collecting new facts relative to Emancipation and the\nresult of it in other parts of the world, as well as relative to the\nsuperiority of free over servile labour, in order that the West Indians\nmay be convinced, if possible, that they would be benefited by the\nchange of system which I propose. They must already know, both by past\nand present experience, that the ways of unrighteousness are not\nprofitable. Let them not doubt, when the Almighty has decreed the\nbalance in favour of virtuous actions, that their efforts under the new\nsystem will work together for their good, so that their temporal\nredemption may be at hand.\n\n\nTHE END.\n\n\nPrinted by Richard Taylor, Shoe-Lane, London.\n\n\n\n\n\nFootnotes:\n\n[1] See Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 18.\n\n[2] See Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 339.\n\n[3] Mitigation of Slavery, p. 50.\n\n[4] See Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 102.\n\n[5] A part of the black regiments were bought in Africa as recruits, and\nwere not transported in slave-ships, and, never under West India\nmasters: but it was only a small part compared with the whole number in\nthe three cases.\n\n[6] M\u00e9moire historique et politique des Colonies, et particuli\u00e8rement de\ncelle de St. Domingue, &c. Paris, August 1814. 8vo. p. 58.\n\n[7] Pp. 125, 126.\n\n[8] There were occasionally marauding parties from the mountains, who\npillaged in the plains; but these were the old insurgent, and not the\nemancipated Negroes.\n\n[9] P. 78.\n\n[10] M\u00e9moires, p. 311.\n\n[11] Ibid. p. 324.\n\n[12] The French were not the authors of tearing to pieces the Negroes\nalive by bloodhounds, or of suffocating them by hundreds at a time in\nthe holds of ships, or of drowning them (whole cargoes) by scuttling and\nsinking the vessels;--but the _planters_.\n\n[13] All the slave-population was to be emancipated in 18 years; and\nthis consisted at the time of passing the decree of from 250,000 to\n300,000 souls.\n\n[14] See Dr. Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, London 1814, from whence\nevery thing relating to this subject is taken. Dr. Dickson had been for\nmany years secretary to Governor Hay, in Barbadoes, where he had an\nopportunity of studying the Slave agriculture as a system. Being in\nLondon afterwards when the Slave Trade controversy was going on in\nParliament, he distinguished himself by silencing the different writers\nwho defended the West Indian slavery. There it was that Mr. Steele\naddressed himself to him by letter, and sent him those invaluable\npapers, which the Doctor afterwards published under the modest title of\n\"Mitigation of Slavery by Steele and Dickson.\" No one was better\nqualified than Dr. Dickson to become the Editor of Mr. Steele.\n\n[15] It is much to be feared that this beautiful order of things was\nbroken up after Mr. Steele's death by his successors, either through\ntheir own prejudices, or their unwillingness or inability to stand\nagainst the scoffs and prejudices of others. It may be happy, however,\nfor thousands now in slavery, that Mr. Steele lived to accomplish his\nplan. The constituent parts and result of it being known, a fine example\nis shown to those who may be desirous of trying emancipation.\n\n[16] Mr. Botham's account is confirmed incontrovertibly by the fact,\nthat sugar made in the East Indies can be brought to England (though it\nhas three times the distance to come, and of course three times the\nfreight to pay), and yet be afforded to the consumer at as cheap a rate\nas any that can be brought thither from the West.\n\n[17] Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 213, where it is proved that\nbought slaves never refund their purchase-money to their owners.\n\n[18] P. 125.","title":"Thoughts on the Necessity of Improving the Condition of the Slaves in the British Colonies: With a View to Their Ultimate Emancipation; and on the Practicability, the Safety, and the Advantages of the Latter Measure.","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":31365}