THOUGHTS ON THE NECESSITY OF IMPROVING THE CONDITION OF THE SLAVES INTHE BRITISH COLONIES, WITH A VIEW TO THEIR ULTIMATE EMANCIPATION; AND ONTHE PRACTICABILITY, THE SAFETY, AND THE ADVANTAGES OF THE LATTERMEASURE. 

BY T. CLARKSON, ESQ. 

1823. 

PREFACE. 

The following sheets first appeared in a periodical work called TheInquirer. They are now republished without undergoing any substantialalteration. The author however thinks it due to himself to state, that_he would have materially qualified those parts of his essay which speakof the improved Condition of the Slaves in the West Indies since theabolition_, had he then been acquainted with the recent evidenceobtained upon that subject. His present conviction certainly is, that hehas overrated that improvement, and that in point of fact Negro Slaveryis, in its main and leading feature, the same system which it was whenthe Abolition controversy first commenced. 

It is possible there may be some, who, having glanced over the TitlePage of this little work, may be startled at the word _Emancipation_. Iwish to inform such, that Mr. Dundas, afterwards Lord Melville, an acuteMan, and a Friend to the Planters, _proposed this very measure toParliament_ in the year 1792. We see, then, that the word Emancipationcannot be charged with _Novelty_. It contains now _no new ideas_. Itcontains now nothing but what has been _thought practicable_, and _evendesirable to be accomplished_. The Emancipation which I desire is suchan Emancipation only, as I firmly believe to be compatible not only withthe due subordination and happiness of the labourer, but with thepermanent interests of his employer. 

I wish also to say, in case any thing like an undue warmth of feeling onmy part should be discovered in the course of the work, that I had nointention of being warm against the West Indians as a body. I know thatthere are many estimable men among them living in England, who deserveevery desirable praise for having sent over instructions to their Agentsin the West Indies from time to time in behalf of their wretched Slaves. And yet, alas! even these, _the Masters themselves, have not hadinfluence enough to secure the fulfilment of their own instructions upontheir own estates_; nor will they, _so long as the present systemcontinues_. They will never be able to carry their meritorious designsinto effect against _Prejudice, Law, and Custom_. If this be not so, howhappens it that you cannot see the Slaves, belonging to such estimablemen, _without marks of the whip upon their backs_? The truth is, that_so long as overseers, drivers, and others, are entrusted with the useof arbitrary power_, and _so long as Negro-evidence is invalid againstthe white oppressor_, and _so long as human nature continues to be whatit is_, _no order_ from the Master for the better personal treatment ofthe Slave _will or can be obeyed_. It is against the _system_ then, andnot against the West Indians as a body, that I am warm, should I befound so unintentionally, in the present work. 

One word or two now on another part of the subject. A great noise willbe made, no doubt, when the question of Emancipation comes to beagitated, about _the immense property at stake_, I mean the property ofthe Planters;--and others connected with them. This is all well. Theirinterests ought undoubtedly to be attended to. But I hope and trust, that, if property is to be attended to _on one side_ of the question, itwill be equally attended to _on the other_. This is but common justice. If you put into one scale _the gold_ and _jewels_ of the Planters, youare bound to put into the other _the liberty_ of 800, 000 of the Africanrace; for every man's liberty is _his own property_ by the laws of_Nature_, _Reason_, _Justice_, and _Religion_? and, if it be not so withour West Indian Slaves, it _is only because_ they have been, andcontinue to be, _deprived_ of it _by force_. And here let us considerfor a moment which of these two different sorts of property is of thegreatest value. Let us suppose an English gentleman to be seized byruffians on the banks of the Thames (and why not a _gentleman_ whenAfrican _princes_ have been so served?) and hurried away to a land (andAlgiers is such a land, for instance), where white persons are held asSlaves. Now this gentleman has not been used to severe labour (neitherhas the African in his own country); and being therefore unable, thoughhe does his best, to please his master, he is roused to further exertion_by the whip_. Perhaps he takes this treatment indignantly. This onlysecures him _a severer punishment_. I say nothing of his being badlyfed, or lodged, or clothed. If he should have a wife and daughters withhim, how much more cruel would be his fate! to see the tender skins ofthese lacerated by the whip! to see them torn from him, with aknowledge, that they are going to be compelled to submit to the lust ofan overseer! _and no redress_. "How long, " says he, "is this frightfulsystem, which tears my body in pieces and excruciates my soul, whichkills me by inches, and which involves my family in unspeakable miseryand unmerited disgrace, to continue?"--"For _ever_, " replies a voiceSuddenly: "_for ever_, as relates to your _own_ life, and the life _ofyour wife and daughters_, and that of _all their posterity_, " Now wouldnot this gentleman give _all that he had left behind him_ in England, and _all that he had in the world besides_, and _all that he had inprospect and expectancy_, to get out of this wretched state, though heforesaw that on his return to his own country he would be obliged to beghis bread for the remainder of his life? I am sure he would. I am surehe would _instantly_ prefer his _liberty to his gold_. There would notbe _the hesitation of a moment_ as to the choice he would make. I hope, then, that if _the argument of property_ should he urged on _one side_of the question, the _argument of property (liberty) will not beoverlooked on the other_, but that they will be fairly weighed, the oneagainst the other, and that an allowance will be made as the scale shallpreponderate on either side. 

THOUGHTS, &c. 

I know of no subject, where humanity and justice, as well as public andprivate interest, would be more intimately united than in that, whichshould recommend a mitigation of the slavery, with a view afterwards tothe emancipation of the Negroes, wherever such may be held in bondage. This subject was taken up for consideration, so early as when theAbolition of the slave trade was first practically thought of, and bythe very persons who first publicly embarked in that cause in England;but it was at length abandoned by them, not on the ground _that Slaverywas less cruel, or wicked, or impolitic, than the slave trade_, but forother reasons. In the first place there were not at that time so manyobstacles in the way of the Abolition, as of the Emancipation of theNegroes. In the second place Abolition could be effected immediately, and with but comparatively little loss, and no danger. Emancipation, onthe other hand, appeared to be rather a work of time. It was beset toowith many difficulties, which required deep consideration, and which, ifnot treated with great caution and prudence, threatened the mostalarming results. In the third place, it was supposed, that, byeffecting the abolition of the slave trade, the axe would be laid to theroot of the whole evil; so that by cutting off the more vital part ofit, the other would gradually die away:--for what was more reasonablethan to suppose, that, when masters could no longer obtain Slaves fromAfrica or elsewhere, they would be compelled individually, by a sort ofinevitable necessity, or a fear of consequences, or by a sense of theirown interest, _to take better care of those whom they might then have intheir possession_? What was more reasonable to suppose, than that thedifferent legislatures themselves, moved also by the same necessity, _would immediately interfere_, without even the loss of a day, _and soalter and amend the laws_ relative to the treatment of Slaves, as toenforce that as a public duty, which it would be thus the privateinterest of individuals to perform? Was it not also reasonable tosuppose that a system of better treatment, thus begun by individuals, and enforced directly afterwards by law, would produce more willing aswell as more able and valuable labourers than before; and that thiseffect, when once visible, would again lead both masters and legislatorson the score of interest to treat their slaves still more like men; nay, at length to give them even privileges; and thus to elevate theircondition by degrees, till at length it would be no difficult task, andno mighty transition, _to pass them_ to that most advantageous situationto both parties, _the rank of Free Men?_

These were the three effects, which the simple measure of the abolitionof the slave trade was expected to produce by those, who first espousedit, by Mr. Granville Sharp, and those who formed the London committee;and by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, Mr. Wilberforce, and others ofillustrious name, who brought the subject before Parliament. Thequestion then is, how have these fond expectations been realized? or howmany and which of these desirable effects have been produced? I mayanswer perhaps with truth, that in our own Islands, where the law of theabolition is not so easily evaded, or where there is less chance ofobtaining new slaves, than in some other parts, there has been already, that is, since the abolition of the slave trade, a somewhat _betterindividual_ treatment of the slaves than before. A certain care has beentaken of them. The plough has been introduced to ease their labour. Indulgences have been given to pregnant women both before and aftertheir delivery; premiums have been offered for the rearing of infants toa certain age; religious instruction has been allowed to many. But whenI mention these instances of improvement, I must be careful todistinguish what I mean;--I do not intend to say, that there were noinstances of humane treatment of the slaves before the abolition of theslave trade. I know, on the other hand, that there were; I know thatthere were planters, who introduced the plough upon their estates, andwho much to their Honour granted similar indulgences, premiums, andpermissions to those now mentioned, previously to this great event. Allthen that I mean to say is this, that, independently of the commonprogress of humanity and liberal opinion, the circumstance of not beingable to get new slaves as formerly, has had its influence upon some ofour planters; that it has made some of them think more; that it has putsome of them more upon their guard; and that there are therefore uponthe whole, more instances of good treatment of slaves by individuals inour Islands (though far from being as numerous as they ought to be) thanat any former period. 

But, alas! though the abolition of the slave trade may have produced asomewhat better individual treatment of the slaves, and this also to asomewhat greater extent than formerly, _not one of the other effects_, so anxiously looked for, has been realized. The condition of the slaveshas not yet been improved by _law_. It is a remarkable, and indeedalmost an incredible fact, _that no one effort has been made_ by thelegislative bodies in our Islands with _the real_ intention of meetingthe new, the great, and the extraordinary event of the abolition of theslave trade. While indeed this measure was under discussion by theBritish Parliament, an attempt was made in several of our Islands toalter the old laws with a view, as it was then pretended, of providingbetter for the wants and personal protection of the slaves; but it wasafterwards discovered, that the promoters of this alteration never meantto carry it into effect. It was intended, by making a show of theselaws, _to deceive the people of England_, and _thus to prevent them fromfollowing up the great question of the abolition_. Mr. Clappeson, one ofthe evidences examined by the House of Commons, was in Jamaica, when theAssembly passed their famous consolidated laws, and he told the House, that "he had often heard from people there, that it was passed becauseof the stir in England about the slave trade;" and he added, "thatslaves continued to be as ill treated there _since the passing of thatact as before_. " Mr. Cook, another of the evidences examined, was longresident in the same island, and, "though he lived there also _since thepassing of the_ act, _he knew of no legal protection_, which slaves hadagainst injuries from their masters. " Mr. Dalrymple was examined to thesame point for Grenada. He was there in 1788, when the Act for thatisland was passed also, called "An Act for the better Protection andpromoting the Increase and Population of Slaves. " He told the House, that, "while he resided there, the proposal in the British Parliamentfor the abolition of the slave trade was a matter of general discussion, and that he believed, that this was a principal reason for passing it. He was of opinion, however, that this Act would prove ineffectual, because, as Negro evidence was not to be admitted, those, who chose toabuse their slaves, might still do it with impunity; and people, wholived on terms of intimacy, would dislike the idea of becoming spies andinformers against each other. " We have the same account of theameliorating Act of Dominica. "This Act, " says Governor Prevost, "appears to have been considered from the day it was passed until thishour as _a political measure to avert the interference of the mothercountry in the management of the slaves_. " We, are informed also on thesame authority, that the clauses of this Act, which had given a promiseof better days, "_had been wholly neglected_. " In short, the Acts passedin our different Islands for the pretended purpose of bettering thecondition of the slaves have been all of them most shamefullyneglected; and they remain only a dead letter; or they are as much anullity, as if they had never existed, at the present day. 

And as our planters have done nothing yet effectively by _law_ forameliorating the condition of their slaves, so they have done nothing orworse than nothing in the case of their _emancipation_. In the year 1815Mr. Wilberforce gave notice in the House of Commons of his intention tointroduce there a bill for the registration of slaves in the Britishcolonies. In the following year an insurrection broke out among someslaves in Barbadoes. Now, though this insurrection originated, as therewas then reason to believe, in local or peculiar circumstances, or incircumstances which had often produced insurrections before, theplanters chose to attribute it to the Registry Bill now mentioned. Theygave out also, that the slaves in Jamaica and in the other islands hadimbibed a notion, that this Bill was to lead to _their emancipation_;that, while this notion existed, their minds would be in an unsettledstate; and therefore that it was necessary that _it should be doneaway_. Accordingly on the 19th day of June 1816, they moved and procuredan address from the Commons to the Prince Regent, the substance of whichwas (as relates to this particular) that "His Royal Highness would bepleased to order all the governors of the West India islands toproclaim, in the most public manner, His Royal Highness's concern andsurprise at the false and mischievous opinion, which appeared to haveprevailed in some of the British colonies, --that either His RoyalHighness or the British Parliament had sent out orders for _theemancipation_ of the Negroes; and to direct the most effectual methodsto be adopted for discountenancing _these unfounded and dangerousimpressions_. " Here then we have a proof "that in the month of June 1816the planters _had no notion of altering the condition of theirNegroes_. " It is also evident, that they have entertained _no suchnotion since_; for emancipation implies a _preparation_ of the personswho are to be the subjects of so great a change. It implies a previousalteration of treatment for the better, and a previous alteration ofcustoms and even of circumstances, no one of which can however be reallyand truly effected without _a previous change of the laws_. In fact, aprogressively better treatment _by law_ must have been settled as apreparatory and absolutely necessary work, had _emancipation beenintended_. But as we have never heard of the introduction of any newlaws to this effect, or with a view of producing this effect, in any ofour colonies, we have an evidence, almost as clear as the sun atnoonday, that our planters have no notion of altering the condition oftheir Negroes, though fifteen years have elapsed since the abolition ofthe slave trade. But if it be true that the abolition of the slavetrade has not produced all the effects, which the abolitionistsanticipated or intended, it would appear to be their duty, unlessinsurmountable obstacles present themselves, _to resume their labours:_for though there may be upon the whole, as I have admitted, a somewhatbetter _individual_ treatment of the slaves by their masters, arisingout of an increased prudence in same, which has been occasioned bystopping the importations, yet it is true, that not only many of theformer continue to be ill-treated by the latter, but that _all may be soill-treated_, if the _latter be so disposed_. They may be ill-fed, hard-worked, ill-used, and wantonly and barbarously punished. They maybe tortured, nay even deliberately and intentionally killed without themeans of redress, or the punishment of the aggressor, so long as theevidence of a Negro is not valid against a white man. If a white masteronly take care, that no other white man sees him commit an atrocity ofthe kind mentioned, he is safe from the cognizance of the law. He maycommit such atrocity in the sight of a thousand black spectators, and noharm will happen to him from it. In fact, the slaves in our Islands have_no more real protection or redress from law_, than when _theAbolitionists first took up the question of the slave trade_. It isevident therefore, that the latter have still one-half of their work toperform, and that it is their duty to perform it. If they were everinfluenced by any good motives, whether of humanity, justice, orreligion, to undertake the cause of the Negroes, they must even now beinfluenced by the same motives to continue it. If any of those disordersstill exist, which it was their intention to cure, they cannot (if theseare curable) retire from the course and say--there is now no furtherneed of our interference. 

The first step then to be taken by the Abolitionists is to attempt tointroduce an _entire new code of laws_ into our colonies. The treatmentof the Negroes there must no longer be made to depend upon _the presumedeffects_ of the abolition of the slave trade. Indeed there were personswell acquainted with Colonial concerns, who called the abolition _but ahalf measure_ at the time when it was first publicly talked of. Theywere sure, that it would never _of itself_ answer the end proposed. Mr. Steele also confessed in his letter to Dr. Dickson[1] (of both of whommore by and by), that "the abolition of the stave trade would _beuseless_, unless at the same time the infamous laws, which he hadpointed out, _were repealed_. " Neither must the treatment of the Negroesbe made to depend upon what may be called _contingent humanity_. We nowleave in this country neither the horse, nor the ass, nor oxen, norsheep, to the contingent humanity even of _British bosoms_;--and shallwe leave those, whom we have proved to be _men_, to the contingenthumanity of a _slave colony_, where the eye is familiarized with cruelsights, and where we have seen a constant exposure to oppression withoutthe possibility of redress? No. The treatment of the Negroes must bemade to depend _upon law_; and unless this be done, we shall look invain for any real amelioration of their condition. In the first place, all those old laws, which are repugnant to humanity and justice, must bedone away. There must also be new laws, positive, certain, easy ofexecution, binding upon all, by means of which the Negroes in ourislands shall have speedy and substantial redress in real cases ofill-usage, whether by starvation, over-work, or acts of personalviolence, or otherwise. There must be new laws again more akin to theprinciple of _reward_ than of _punishment_, of _privilege_ than of_privation_, and which shall, have a tendency to raise or elevate theircondition, so as to fit them by degrees to sustain the rank of free men. 

But if a new Code of Laws be indispensably necessary in our colonies inorder to secure a better treatment to the slaves, to whom must we lookfor it? I answer, that we must not look for it to the West IndianLegislatures. For, in the first place, judging of what they are likelyto do from what they have already done, or rather from what they have_not_ done, we can have no reasonable expectation from that quarter. Onehundred and fifty years have passed, during which long interval theirlaws have been nearly stationary, or without any material improvement. In the second place, the individuals composing these Legislatures, having been used to the exercise of unlimited power, would be unwillingto part with that portion of it, which would be necessary to secure theobject in view. In the third place, their prejudices against theirslaves are too great to allow them to become either impartial or willingactors in the case. The term _slave_ being synonymous according to theirestimation and usage with the term _brute_, they have fixed a stigmaupon their Negroes, such as we, who live in Europe, could not haveconceived, unless we had had irrefragable evidence upon the point. Whatevils has not this cruel association of terms produced? The West Indianmaster looks down upon his slave with disdain. He has besides a certainantipathy against him. He hates the sight of his features, and of hiscolour; nay, he marks with distinctive opprobrium the very blood in hisveins, attaching different names and more or less infamy to those whohave it in them, according to the quantity which they have of it inconsequence of their pedigree, or of their greater or less degree ofconsanguinity with the whites. Hence the West Indian feels anunwillingness to elevate the condition of the Negro, or to do any thingfor him as a human being. I have no doubt, that this prejudice has beenone of the great causes why the improvement of our slave population _bylaw_ has been so long retarded, and that the same prejudice willcontinue to have a similar operation, so long as it shall continue toexist. Not that there are wanting men of humanity among our West Indianlegislators. Their humanity is discernible enough when it is to beapplied to the _whites_; but such is the system of slavery, and thedegradation attached to this system, that their humanity seems to belost or gone, when it is to be applied to the _blacks_. Not again thatthere are wanting men of sense among the same body. They are shrewd andclever enough in the affairs of life, where they maintain an intercoursewith the _whites_; but in their intercourse with the _blacks_ theirsense appears to be shrivelled and not of its ordinary size. Look at thelaws of their own making, as far as the Negroes are concerned, and theyare a collection of any thing but--wisdom. 

It appears then, that if a new code of laws is indispensably necessaryin our Colonies in order to secure a better treatment of the slavesthere, we are not to look to the West Indian Legislatures for it. Towhom then are we to turn our eyes for help on this occasion? We answer, To the British Parliament, the source of all legitimate power; to thatParliament, _which has already heard and redressed in part the wrongs ofAfrica_. The West Indian Legislatures must be called upon to send theirrespective codes to this Parliament for revision. Here they will be welland impartially examined; some of the laws will be struck out, othersamended, and others added; and at length they will be returned to theColonies, means having been previously devised for their executionthere. 

But here no doubt a considerable opposition would arise on the part ofthe West India planters. These would consider any such interference bythe British Parliament as an invasion of their rights, and they wouldcry out accordingly. We remember that they set up a clamour when theabolition of the slave trade was first proposed. But what did Mr. Pittsay to them in the House of Commons? "I will now, " said he, "considerthe proposition, that on account of some patrimonial rights of the WestIndians, the prohibition of the slave trade would be an invasion oftheir legal inheritance. This proposition implied, that Parliament hadno right to stop the importations: but had this detestable trafficreceived such a sanction, as placed it more out of the jurisdiction ofthe Legislature for ever after, than any other branch of our trade? Butif the laws respecting the slave trade implied a contract for itsperpetual continuance, the House could never regulate any other of thebranches of our national commerce. But _any contract_ for the promotionof this trade must, in his opinion, _have been void from thebeginning_; for if it was _an outrage upon justice_, and only anothername for _fraud, robbery, and murder_, what _pledge_ could devolve uponthe Legislature to incur the obligation of becoming principals in thecommission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?"

They set up again a similar clamour, when the Registry Bill beforementioned was discussed in Parliament, contending that the introductionof it there was an interference with their rights also: but we must notforget the reply which Mr. Canning made to them on that occasion. "Hehad known, (he said, ) and there might again occur, instances ofobstinacy in the colonial assemblies, which left the British Parliamentno choice but direct interference. Such conduct might now call for suchan exertion on the part of Parliament; but all that he pleaded for was, that time should be granted, that it might be known if the colonialassemblies would take upon them to do what that House was pleased todeclare should be done. The present address could not be misunderstood. It told the colonial assemblies, You are safe for the present from theinterference of the British Parliament, on the belief, and on thepromise made for you, that left to yourselves you will do what isrequired of you. To hold this language was sufficient. The Assembliesmight be left to infer the consequences of a refusal, and Parliamentmight rest satisfied with the consciousness, that they held in theirhands the means of accomplishing that which they had proposed. " In asubsequent discussion of the subject in the House of Lords, Lord Hollandremarked, that "in his opinion there had been more prejudice againstthis Bill than the nature of the thing justified; but, whatever might bethe objection felt against it in the Colonies, it might be well for themto consider, that it would be _impossible for them to resist_, and that, if the thing was not done by them, _it would be done for them_. " But onthis subject, that is, on the subject of colonial rights, I shall saymore in another place. It will be proper, however, to repeat here, andto insist upon it too, that there is no _effectual way_ of remedying theevil complained of, but by subjecting the colonial laws to the _revisionof the Legislature of the mother country_; and perhaps I shall disarmsome of the opponents to this measure, and at any rate free myself fromthe charge of a novel and wild proposition, when I inform them that Mr. Long, the celebrated historian and planter of Jamaica, and to whoseauthority all West Indians look up, adopted the same idea. Writing onthe affairs of Jamaica, he says: "The system[2] of Colonial government, and the imperfection of their several laws, are subjects, which neverwere, but _which ought to be_, strictly canvassed, examined, and amendedby the British Parliament. "

The second and last step to be taken by the Abolitionists should be, tocollect all possible light on the subject of _emancipation_ with a viewof carrying that measure into effect in its due time. They ought neverto forget, that _emancipation_ was included in _their original idea ofthe abolition of the slave trade_. Slavery was then as much an evil intheir eyes as the trade itself; and so long as the former continues inits present state, the extinction of it ought to be equally an object oftheir care. All the slaves in our colonies, whether men, women, orchildren, whether _Africans or Creoles_, have been unjustly deprived oftheir rights. There is not a master, who has the least claim to theirservices in point of equity. There is, therefore, a great debt due tothem, and for this no payment, no amends, no equivalent can be found, but a _restoration to their liberty_. 

That all have been unjustly deprived of their rights, may be easilyshown by examining the different grounds on which they are alleged to beheld in bondage. With respect to those in our colonies, who are_Africans_, I never heard of any title to them but by the _right ofpurchase_. But it will be asked, where did the purchasers get them? Itwill be answered, that they got them from the sellers; and where did thesellers, that is, the original sellers, get them? They got them by_fraud or violence_. So says the evidence before the House of Commons;and so, in fact, said both Houses of Parliament, when they abolished thetrade: and this is the plea set up for retaining them in a cruelbondage!!!

With respect to the rest of the slaves, that is, the _Creoles_, or thoseborn in the colonies, the services, the perpetual services, of these areclaimed on the plea of the _law of birth_. They were born slaves, andthis circumstance is said to give to their masters a sufficient right totheir persons. But this doctrine sprung from the old Roman law, whichtaught that all slaves were to be considered as _cattle_. "Partussequitur ventrem, " says this law, or the "condition or lot of the motherdetermines the condition or lot of the offspring. " It is the same law, which we ourselves now apply to cattle while they are in our possession. Thus the calf belongs to the man who owns the cow, and the foal to theman who owns the mare, and not to the owner of the bull or horse, whichwere the male parents of each. It is then upon this, the old Roman law, and not upon any English law, that the planters found their right to theservices of such as are born in slavery. In conformity with this lawthey denied, for one hundred and fifty years, both the moral andintellectual nature of their slaves. They considered them themselves, and they wished them to be considered by others, in these respects, asupon a level only _with the beasts of the field_. Happily, however, their efforts have been in vain. The evidence examined before the Houseof Commons in the years 1789, 1790, and 1791, has confirmed thefalsehood of their doctrines. It has proved that the social affectionsand the intellectual powers both of Africans and Creoles are the same asthose of other human beings. What then becomes of the Roman law? For asit takes no other view of slaves than as _cattle_, how is it applicableto those, whom we have so abundantly proved _to be men_?

This is the grand plea, upon which our West Indian planters have foundedtheir right to the perpetual services of their _Creole_ slaves. Theyconsider them as the young or offspring of cattle. But as the slaves inquestion have been proved, and are now acknowledged, to be the offspringof men and women, of social, intellectual, and accountable beings, theirright must fall to the ground. Nor do I know upon what other principleor right they can support it. They can have surely no _natural right_ tothe infant, who is born of a woman slave. If there be any right to it by_nature_, such right must belong, not to the master of the mother, butto the mother herself. They can have no right to it again, either on thescore of _reason_ or of _justice_. Debt and crime have been generallyadmitted to be two fair grounds, on which men may be justly deprived oftheir liberty for a time, and even made to labour, inasmuch as theyinclude _reparation of injury_, and the duty of the magistrate to _makeexamples_, in order that he may not bear the sword in vain. But whatinjury had the infant done, when it came into the world, to the masterof its mother, that reparation should be sought for, or punishmentinflicted for example, and that this reparation and this punishmentshould be made to consist of a course of action and suffering, againstwhich, more than against any other, human nature would revolt? Is itreasonable, is it just, that a poor infant who has done no injury to anyone, should be subjected, _he and his posterity for ever_, to _thearbitrary will and tyranny of another_, and moreover to _the conditionof a brute_, because by _mere accident_, and by _no fault_ or _will ofhis own_, he was born of a person, who had been previously in thecondition of a slave?

And as the right to slaves, because they were born slaves, cannot bedefended either upon the principles of reason or of justice, so thisright absolutely falls to pieces, when we come to try it by thetouchstone _of the Christian religion_. Every man who is born into theworld, whether he be white or whether he be black, is born, according toChristian notions, a _free agent_ and _an accountable creature_. This isthe Scriptural law of his nature as a human bring. He is born under thislaw, and he continues under it during his life. Now the West Indianslavery is of such an arbitrary nature, that it may be termed _proper_or _absolute_. The dominion attached to it is a despotism withoutcontrol; a despotism, which keeps up its authority by terror only. Thesubjects of it _must do_, and this _instantaneously_, whatever theirmaster _orders them to do_, whether it _be right or wrong_. His will, and his will alone, is their law. If the wife of a slave were ordered bya master to submit herself to his lusts, and therefore to commitadultery, or if her husband were ordered to steal any thing for him, andtherefore to commit theft, I have no conception that either the one orthe other would _dare_ to disobey his commands. "The whip, the shackles, the dungeon, " says Mr. Steele before mentioned, "are at all times in hispower, whether it be to gratify his _lust_, or display hisauthority[3]. " Now if the master has the power, _a just, and moralpower_, to make his slaves do what he orders them to do, even if it bewrong, then I must contend that the Scriptures, whose authority wevenerate, are false. I must contend that his slaves never could havebeen born free agents and accountable creatures; or that, as soon asthey became slaves, they were absolved from the condition of free-agencyand that they lost their responsibility as men. But if, on the otherhand, it be the revealed will of God, that all men, without exception, must be left free to act, but accountable to God for their actions;--Icontend that no man can be born, nay, further, that no man can be made, held, or possessed, as a proper slave. I contend that there can be, according to the Gospel-dispensation, _no such state as West Indianslavery_. But let us now suppose for a moment, that there might be foundan instance or two of slaves enlightened by some pious Missionary, whowould refuse to execute their master's orders on the principle that theywere wrong; even this would not alter our views of the case. For wouldnot this refusal be so unexampled, so unlooked-for, so immediatelydestructive to all authority and discipline, and so provocative ofanger, that it would be followed by _immediate and signal punishment_?Here then we should have a West Indian master reversing all the laws andrules of civilized nations, and turning upside down all the morality ofthe Gospel by the novel practice of _punishing men for their virtues_. This new case affords another argument, why a man cannot be born aproper slave. In fact, the whole system of our planters appears to me tobe so directly in opposition to the whole system of our religion, that Ihave no conception, how a man can have been born a slave, such as theWest Indian is; nor indeed have I any conception, how he can be, rightly, or justly, or properly, a West Indian slave at all. Thereappears to me something even impious in the thought; and I am convinced, that many years will not pass, before the West Indian slavery willfall, and that future ages will contemplate with astonishment how thepreceding could have tolerated it. 

It has now appeared, if I have reasoned conclusively, that the WestIndians have no title to their slaves on the ground of purchase, nor onthe plea of the law of birth, nor on that of any natural right, nor onthat of reason or justice, and that Christianity absolutely annihilatesit. It remains only to show, that they have no title to them on theground of _original grants or permissions of Governments_, or of _Actsof Parliament_, or of _Charters_, or of _English law_. 

With respect to original grants or permissions of Governments, the caseis very clear. History informs us, that neither the African slave tradenor the West Indian slavery would have been allowed, had it not been forthe _misrepresentations_ and _falsehoods_ of those, _who were firstconcerned in them_. The Governments of those times were made to believe, first, that the poor Africans embarked _voluntarily_ on board the shipswhich took them from their native land; and secondly, that they wereconveyed to the Colonies principally for _their own benefit_, or out of_Christian feeling for them_, that they might afterwards _be convertedto Christianity_. Take as an instance of the first assertion, the way inwhich Queen Elizabeth was deceived, in whose reign the execrable slavetrade began in England. This great princess seems on the verycommencement of the trade to have questioned its lawfulness. She seemsto have entertained a religious scruple concerning it, and indeed, tohave revolted at the very thoughts of it. She seems to have been awareof the evils to which its continuance might lead, or that, if it weresanctioned, the most unjustifiable means might be made use of to procurethe persons of the natives of Africa. And in what light she would haveviewed any acts of this kind, had they taken place to her knowledge, wemay conjecture from this fact--that when Captain (afterwards Sir John)Hawkins returned from his first voyage to Africa and Hispaniola, whitherhe had carried slaves, she sent for him, and, as we learn from Hill'sNaval History, expressed her concern lest any of the Africans should becarried off _without their free consent_, declaring, "that it would bedetestable and call down the vengeance of Heaven upon the undertakers. "Capt. Hawkins promised to comply with the injunctions of Elizabeth inthis respect. But he did not keep his word; for when he went to Africaagain, _he seized_ many of the inhabitants _and carried them off_ asslaves, "Here (says Hill) began the horrid practice of forcing theAfricans into slavery, an injustice and barbarity, which, so sure asthere is vengeance in Heaven for the worst of crimes, will sometime bethe destruction of all who encourage it. " Take as an instance of thesecond what Labat, a Roman missionary, records in his account of theIsles of America. He says, that Louis the Thirteenth was very uneasy, when he was about to issue the edict, by which all Africans coming intohis colonies were to be made slaves; and that this uneasiness continued, till he was assured that the introduction of them in this capacity intohis foreign dominions was the readiest way of _converting them_ to theprinciples _of the Christian religion_. It was upon these ideas then, namely, that the Africans left their own country voluntarily, and thatthey were to receive the blessings of Christianity, and upon thesealone, that the first transportations were allowed, and that the first_English_ grants and Acts of Parliament, and that the first _foreign_edicts, sanctioned them. We have therefore the fact well authenticated, as it relates _to original Government grants and permissions_, that theowners of many of the Creole slaves in our colonies have no better titleto them as property, than as being the descendants of persons forcedaway from their country and brought thither by a traffic, which had itsallowed origin in _fraud and falsehood_. 

Neither have the masters of slaves in our colonies any title to theirslaves on account of any _charters_, which they may be able to produce, though their charters are the only source of their power. It is throughthese that they have hitherto legislated, and that they continue tolegislate. Take away their charters, and they would have no right orpower to legislate at all. And yet, though they have their charters, andthough the slavery, which now exists, has been formed and kept togetherentirely by the laws, which such charters have given them the power tomake, this very slavery _is illegal_. There is not an individual, whoholds any of the slaves by a _legal_ title: for it is expressed in allthese charters, whether in those given to William Penn and others forthe continent of North America, or in those given for the islands nowunder our consideration, that "the laws and statutes, to be made there, are _not to be repugnant_, but, as near as may be, _agreeable, to thelaws_ and statutes of this our _kingdom of Great Britain_. " But is itconsistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have thepower of forcing another to work for him without wages? Is it consistentwith the laws of England, that any one man should have the power offlogging, beating, bruising, or wounding another at his discretion? Isit consistent with the laws of England, that a man should be judged byany but his peers? Is it consistent with the same laws, that a manshould be deprived of the power of giving evidence against the man whohas injured him? or that there should be a privileged class, againstwhom no testimony can be admitted on certain occasions, though theperpetrators of the most horrid crimes? But when we talk of consistencyon this occasion, let us not forget that old law of Barbadoes, madewhile the charter of that island was fresh in every body's memory, andtherefore in the very teeth of the charter itself, which runs thus: "Ifany slave, under punishment by his master or by his order, shall sufferin life or member, no person shall be liable to any fine for the same:but if any person shall _wantonly_ or _cruelly_ kill his own slave, heshall pay the treasury 15 l. " And here let us remark, that, when LordSeaforth, governor of Barbadoes, proposed, so lately as in 1802, therepeal of this bloody law, the Legislature of that island rejected theproposition with indignation. Nay, the very proposal to repeal it sostirred up at the time the bad passions of many, that several brutalmurders of slaves were committed in consequence; and it was not till twoor three years afterwards that the governor had influence enough to getthe law repealed. Let the West Indians then talk no more of their_charters_; for in consequence of having legislated upon principles, which are at variance with those upon which the laws of England arefounded, they have _forfeited them all_. The mother country hastherefore a right to withdraw these charters whenever she pleases, andto substitute such others as she may think proper. And here let it beobserved also, that the right of the West Indians to make any laws atall for their own islands being founded upon their charters, and uponthese alone, and the laws relating to the slaves being contrary to whatsuch charters prescribe, the _slavery itself_, that is, the daily livingpractice with respect to slaves under such laws, _is illegal_ and _maybe done away_. But if so, all our West Indian slaves are, withoutexception, unlawfully held in bondage. There is no master, who has alegal title to any of them. This assertion may appear strange andextravagant to many; but it does not follow on that account that it isthe less true. It is an assertion, which has been made by a West Indianproprietor himself. Mr. Steele[4], before quoted, furnishes us with whatpassed at the meeting of the Society of Arts in Barbadoes at theircommittee-room in August 1785, when the following question was in theorder of the day: "Is there any law written, or printed, by which aproprietor can prove his title to his slave under or conformable to thelaws of England?" And "Why, (immediately said one of the members, ) whyconformable to the laws of England? Will not the courts in England admitsuch proof as is authorized by _our slave laws_?"--"I apprehend not, (answered a second, ) unless we can show that _our slave laws_ (accordingto the limitations of the charter) are _not_ repugnant to the laws ofEngland. "--The same gentleman resumed: "Does the original purchaser ofan African slave in this island obtain any legal title from the merchantor importer of slaves--and of what nature? Does it set forth any titleof propriety, agreeable to the laws of England (or even to the laws ofnations) to be in the importer more than what depends upon his simpleaverment? And have not free Negroes been at sundry times trepanned bysuch dealers, and been brought contrary to the laws of nations, and soldhere as slaves?"--"There is no doubt, (observed a third, ) but suchvillainous actions have been done by worthless people: however, thoughan honest and unsuspicious man may be deceived in buying a stolen horse, it does not follow that he may not have a fair and just title to a horseor any thing else bought in an open and legal market; but according tothe obligation _of being not repugnant to the laws of England_, I do notsee how _we can have any title to our slaves_ likely to be supported bythe laws of England. " In fact, the Colonial system is an excrescenceupon the English Constitution, and is constantly at variance with it. There is not one English law, which gives a man a right to the libertyof any of his fellow creatures. Of course there cannot be, according tocharters, any Colonial law to this effect. If there be, it is _null andvoid_. Nay, the very man, who is held in bondage by the Colonial law, becomes free by English law the moment he reaches the English shore. Butwe have said enough for our present purpose. We have shown that theslaves in our Colonies, whether they be Africans, or whether they beCreoles, _have been unjustly deprived of their rights_. There is ofcourse a great debt due to them. They have a claim to a restoration toliberty; and as this restoration was included by the Abolitionists intheir original idea of the abolition of the slavetrade, so it is theirduty to endeavour to obtain it _the first moment it is practicable_. Ishall conclude my observations on this part of the subject, in the wordsof that old champion of African liberty, Mr. W. Smith, the presentMember for Norwich, when addressing the House of Commons in the lastsession of parliament on a particular occasion. He admitted, alluding tothe slaves in our colonies, that "immediate emancipation might be aninjury, and not a blessing to the slaves themselves. A period of_preparation_, which unhappily included delay, seemed to be necessary. The ground of this delay, however, was not the intermediate advantage tobe derived from their labour, but a conviction of its expediency as itrelated to themselves. We had to _compensate_ to these wretched beings_for ages of injustice_. We were bound by the strongest obligations _totrain up_ these subjects of our past injustice and tyranny _for an equalparticipation with ourselves in the blessings of liberty and theprotection of the law_; and by these considerations ought our measuresto be strictly and conscientiously regulated. It was only in consequenceof the necessity of time to be consumed in such a preparation, that wecould be justified in the retention of the Negroes in slavery _for asingle hour_; and he trusted that the eyes of all men, both here and inthe colonies, would be open to this view of the subject as their clearand indispensable duty. "

Having led the reader to the first necessary step to be taken in favourof our slaves in the British Colonies, --namely, the procuring for them anew and better code of laws; and having since led him to the last orfinal one, --namely, the procuring for them the rights of which they havebeen unjustly deprived: I shall now confine myself entirely to thislatter branch of the subject, being assured, that it has a claim to allthe attention that can be bestowed upon it; and I trust that I shall beable to show, by appealing to historical facts, that however awful andtremendous the work of _emancipation_ may seem, it is yet _practicable_;that it is practicable also _without danger_; and moreover, that it ispracticable with the probability of _advantage_ to all the partiesconcerned. 

In appealing however to facts for this purpose, we must expect no lightfrom antiquity to guide us on our way; for history gives us no accountof persons in those times similarly situated with the slaves in theBritish colonies at the present day. There were no particular nations inthose times, like the Africans, expressly set apart for slavery by therest of the world, so as to have a stigma put upon them on that account, nor did a difference of the colour of the skin constitute always, as itnow does, a most marked distinction between the master and the slave, soas to increase this stigma and to perpetuate antipathies between them. Nor did the slaves of antiquity, except perhaps once in Sparta, form thewhole labouring population of the land; nor did they work incessantly, like the Africans, under the whip; nor were they generally so behindtheir masters in cultivated intellect. Neither does ancient history giveus in the cases of manumission, which it records, any parallel, fromwhich we might argue in the case before us. The ancient manumissionswere those of individuals only, generally of but one at a time, and onlynow and then; whereas the emancipation, which we contemplate in thecolonies, will comprehend _whole bodies of men_, nay, _wholepopulations_, at a given time. We must go therefore in quest of examplesto modern times, or rather to the history of the colonial slaveryitself; and if we should find any there, which appear to bear at allupon the case in question, we must be thankful for them, and, thoughthey should not be entirely to our mind, we must not turn them away, butkeep them, and reason from them as far as their analogies will warrant. 

In examining a period comprehending the last forty years, I find no lessthan six or seven instances of the emancipation of African slaves _inbodies_. The first of these cases occurred at the close of the firstAmerican war. A number of slaves had run away from their North Americanmasters and joined the British army. When peace came, the BritishGovernment did not know what to do with them. Their services were nolonger wanted. To leave them behind to fall again into the power oftheir masters would have been great cruelty as well as injustice; and asto taking them to England, what could have been done with them there? Itwas at length determined to give _them their liberty_, and to disbandthem in Nova Scotia, and to settle them there upon grants of land as_British subjects_ and as _free men_. The Nova Scotians on learningtheir destination were alarmed. They could not bear the thought ofhaving such a number of black persons among them, and particularly asthese understood the use of arms. The Government, however, perseveringin its original intention, they were conveyed to Halifax, anddistributed from thence into the country. Their number, comprehendingmen, women, and children, were two thousand and upwards. To gain theirlivelihood, some of them worked upon little portions of land of theirown; others worked as carpenters; others became fishermen; and othersworked for hire in other ways. In process of time they raised places ofworship of their own, and had ministers of their own from their ownbody. They led a harmless life, and gained the character of anindustrious and honest people from their white neighbours. A few yearsafterwards the land in Nova Scotia being found too poor to answer, andthe climate too cold for their constitutions, a number of them, to theamount of between thirteen and fourteen hundred, volunteered to form anew colony, which was then first thought of, at Sierra Leone. Accordingly, having been conveyed there, they realized the object inview; and they are to be found there, they or their descendants, most ofthem in independent and some of them in affluent circumstances, at thepresent day. 

A second case may be taken from what occurred at the close of thesecond, or last American war. It may be remembered that a large Britishnaval force, having on board a powerful land force, sailed in the year1814, to make a descent on the coast of the southern States of America. The British army, when landed, marched to Washington, and burnt most ofits public buildings. It was engaged also at different times with theAmerican army in the field. During these expeditions, some hundreds ofslaves in these parts joined the British standard by invitation. Whenthe campaign was over, the same difficulty occurred about disposing ofthese as in the former case. It was determined at length to ship them toTrinidad _as free labourers_. But here, that is, at Trinidad, anobjection was started against receiving them, but on a different groundfrom that which had been started in the similar case in Nova Scotia. Theplanters of Trinidad were sure that no free Negroes would ever work, and therefore that the slaves in question would, if made free andsettled among them, support themselves _by plunder_. Sir Ralph Woodford, however, the governor of the island, resisted the outcry of theseprejudices. He received them into the island, and settled them where hesupposed the experiment would be most safely made. The result has shownhis discernment. These very men, formerly slaves in the Southern Statesof America and afterwards emancipated in a body at Trinidad, are nowearning their own livelihood, and with so much industry and good conductthat the calumnies originally spread against them have entirely diedaway. 

A third case may comprehend those Negroes, who lately formed what wecall our West Indian black regiments. Some of these had been originallypurchased in Africa, not as slaves but recruits, and others in Jamaicaand elsewhere. They had all served as soldiers in the West Indies. Atlength certain of these regiments were transported to Sierra Leone anddisbanded there, and the individuals composing them received theirdischarge _as free men_. This happened in the spring of 1819. _Manyhundreds_ of them were _set at liberty at once_ upon this occasion. Someof these were afterwards marched into the interior, where they foundedWaterloo, Hastings, and other villages. Others were shipped to the Islesde Loss, where they made settlements in like manner. Many, in bothcases, took with them their wives, which they had brought from the WestIndies, and others selected wives from the natives on the spot. Theywere all settled upon grants given them by the Government. It appearsfrom accounts received from Sir Charles M'Carthy, the governor of SierraLeone, that they have conducted themselves to his satisfaction, and thatthey will prove a valuable addition to that colony. 

A fourth case may comprehend what we call _the captured Negroes_ in thecolony now mentioned. These are totally distinct from those either inthe first or in the last of the cases which have been mentioned. It iswell known that these were taken out of slave-ships captured atdifferent times from the commencement of the abolition of the slavetrade to the present moment, and that on being landed _they were madefree_. After having been recruited in their health they were marched inbodies into the interior, where they were taught to form villages and tocultivate land for themselves. They were _made free_ as they were landedfrom the vessels, _from fifty to two or three hundred at a time_. Theyoccupy at present twelve towns, in which they have both their churchesand their schools. Regents Town having been one of the firstestablished, containing about thirteen hundred souls, stands foremost inimprovement, and has become a pattern for industry and good example. The people there have now fallen entirely into the habits of Englishsociety. They are decently and respectably dressed. They attend divineworship regularly. They exhibit an orderly and moral conduct. In theirtown little shops are now beginning to make their appearance; and theirlands show the marks of extraordinary cultivation. Many of them, afterhaving supplied their own wants for the year, have a surplus produce inhand for the purchase of superfluities or comforts. 

Here then are four cases of slaves, either Africans or descendants ofAfricans, _emancipated_ in _considerable bodies_ at a time. I have keptthem by themselves, became they are of a different complexion fromthose, which I intend should follow. I shall now reason upon them. Letme premise, however, that I shall consider the three first of the casesas one, so that the same reasoning will do for all. They are alikeindeed in their _main_ features; and we must consider this assufficient; for to attend minutely to every shade of difference[5], which may occur in every case, would be to bewilder the reader, and toswell the size of my work unnecessarily, or without conferring anadequate benefit to the controversy on either side. 

It will be said then (for my reasoning will consist principally inanswering objections on the present occasion) that the three first cases_are not strictly analogous_ to that of our West Indian slaves, whoseemancipation we are seeking. It will be contended, that the slaves inour West Indian colonies have been constantly in an abject and degradedstate. Their faculties are benumbed. They have contracted all the vicesof slavery. They are become habitually thieves and liars. Their bosomsburn with revenge against the whites. How then can persons in such astate be fit to receive their freedom? The slaves, on the other hand, who are comprehended in the three cases above mentioned, found in theBritish army a school as it were, _which fitted them by degrees formaking a good use of their liberty_. While they were there, they werenever out of the reach of discipline, and yet were daily left tothemselves to act as free men. They obtained also in this _preparatoryschool_ some knowledge of the customs of civilized life. They were inthe habit also of mixing familiarly with the white soldiers. Hence, itwill be said, they were in a state much _more favourable for undergoinga change in their condition_ than the West Indian slaves beforementioned. I admit all this. I admit the difference between the twosituations, and also the preference which I myself should give to theone above the other on account of its desirable tendencies. But I neverstated, that our West Indian slaves were to be emancipated _suddenly_, but _by degrees_. I always, on the other hand, took it for granted, thatthey were to have _their preparatory school_ also. Nor must it beforgotten, as a comparison has been instituted, that if there was _lessdanger_ in emancipating the other slaves, _because they had receivedsomething like a preparatory education_ for the change, there was _farmore_ in another point of view, because _they were all acquainted withthe use of arms_. This is a consideration of great importance; butparticularly when we consider _the prejudices of the blacks against thewhites_; for would our West Indian planters be as much at their ease, asthey now are, if their slaves had acquired _a knowledge of the use ofarms_, or would they think them on this account more or less fit foremancipation?

It will be said again, that the fourth case, consisting of the SierraLeone captured Negroes, _is not strictly analogous_ to the one in point. These had probably been slaves but _for a short time_, --say a fewmonths, including the time which elapsed between their reduction toslavery and their embarkation from Africa, and between this theirembarkation and their capture upon the ocean. They had scarcely beenslaves when they were returned to the rank of free men. Little or nochange therefore could have been effected in so short an interim intheir disposition and their character; and, as they were never carriedto the West Indies, so they never could have contracted the bad habits, or the degradation or vices, of the slavery there. It will be contendedtherefore, that they were _better_, _or less hazardous_, subjects for_emancipation_, than the slaves in our colonies. I admit this objection, and I give it its full weight. I admit it to be _less hazardous_ toemancipate a _new_ than an _old_ slave. And yet the case of the SierraLeone captured Negroes is a very strong one. They were all _Africans_. They were all _slaves_. They must have contracted _as mortal a hatred ofthe whites_ from their sufferings on board ship by fetters, whips, andsuffocation in the hold, as the West Indian from those severities whichare attached to their bondage upon shore. Under these circumstances thenwe find them _made free_; but observe, not after any _preparatory_discipline, but almost _suddenly_, and _not singly_, but _in bodies_ ata time. We find them also settled or made to live under the _unnatural_government of the _whites_; and, what is more extraordinary, we findtheir present number, as compared with that of the whites in the samecolony, nearly as _one hundred and fifty to one_; notwithstanding whichsuperiority fresh emancipations are constantly taking place, as freshcargoes of the captured arrive in port. 

It will be said, lastly, that all the four cases put together provenothing. They can give us nothing like _a positive assurance_, that theNegro slaves in our colonies would pass through the ordeal ofemancipation without danger to their masters or the community at large. Certainly not. Nor if these instances had been far more numerous thanthey are, could they, in this world of accidents, have given us _a moralcertainty of this_. They afford us however _a hope_, that emancipationis practicable without danger: for will any one pretend to say, that weshould have had as much reason for entertaining such a hope, _if no suchinstances had occurred_; or that we should not have had reason todespair, _if four such experiments had been made, and if they had allfailed_? They afford us again ground for believing, that there is apeculiar softness, and plasticity, and pliability in the Africancharacter. This softness may be collected almost every where from theTravels of Mr. Mungo Park, and has been noticed by other writers, whohave contrasted it with the unbending ferocity of the North AmericanIndians and other tribes. But if this be a feature in the Africancharacter, we may account for the uniformity of the conduct of thoseAfricans, who were liberated on the several occasions above mentioned, or for their yielding so uniformly to the impressions, which had beengiven them by their superiors, after they had been made free; and, ifthis be so, why should not our colonial slaves, if emancipated, conductthemselves in the same manner? Besides, I am not sure whether the goodconduct of the liberated in these cases was not to be attributed in partto a sense of interest, when they came to know, that their condition_was to be improved_. Self-interest is a leading principle with all whoare born into the world; and why is the Negro slave in our colonies tobe shut out from this common feeling of our nature?--why is he to riseagainst his master, when he is informed that his condition is to bebettered? Did not the planters, as I have before related, declare in theHouse of Commons in the year 1816, that their Negroes had then imbibedthe idea that they were to be made free, and that they were _extremelyrestless on that account_? But what was the cause of all thisrestlessness? Why, undoubtedly the thought of their emancipation was sointeresting, or rather a matter of such exceedingly great joy to them, that _they could not help thinking and talking of it_. And would notthis be the case with our Negroes at this moment, if such a prospectwere to be set before them? But if they would be overjoyed at thisprospect, is it likely they would cut the throats of those, who shouldattempt to realize it? would they not, on the other hand, be disposed toconduct themselves equally well as the other African slaves beforementioned, when they came to know, that they were immediately to beprepared for the reception of this great blessing, the _firstguarantee_ of which would be an _immediate_ and _living experience_ ofbetter laws and better treatment?

The fifth case may comprehend the slaves of St. Domingo as they weremade free at different intervals in the course of the French Revolution. 

To do justice to this case, I must give a history of the differentcircumstances connected with it. It may be remembered, then, that whenthe French Revolution, which decreed equality of rights to all citizens, had taken place, the _free People of Colour_ of St. Domingo, many ofwhom were persons of large property and liberal education, petitionedthe National Assembly, that they might enjoy the same politicalprivileges as the _Whites_ there. At length the subject of the petitionwas discussed, but not till the 8th of March 1790, when the Assemblyagreed upon a decree concerning it. The decree, however, was worded soambiguously, that the two parties in St. Domingo, the _Whites_ and the_People of Colour_, interpreted it each of them in its own favour. Thisdifference of interpretation gave rise to animosities between them, andthese animosities were augmented by political party-spirit, according asthey were royalists or partizans of the French Revolution, so thatdisturbances took place and blood was shed. 

In the year 1791, the People of Colour petitioned the Assembly again, but principally for an explanation of the decree in question. On the15th of May, the subject was taken into consideration, and the resultwas another decree in explicit terms, which determined, that the _Peopleof Colour_ in all the French islands were entitled to all the rights ofcitizenship, provided _they were born of free parents on both sides_. The news of this decree had no sooner arrived at the Cape, than itproduced an indignation almost amounting to phrensy among the _Whites_. They directly trampled under foot the national cockade, and withdifficulty were prevented from seizing all the French merchant ships inthe roads. After this the two parties armed against each other. Evencamps began to be formed. Horrible massacres and conflagrationsfollowed, the reports of which, when brought to the mother-country, wereso terrible, that the Assembly abolished the decree in favour of _theFree People of Colour_ in the same year. 

In the year 1792, the news of the rescinding of the decree as nowstated, produced, when it reached St. Domingo, as much irritation amongthe People of Colour, as the news of the passing of it had done amongthe Whites, and hostilities were renewed between them, so that newbattles, massacres, and burnings, took place. Suffice it to say, that assoon as these events became known in France, the Conventional Assembly, which had then succeeded the Legislative, took them into consideration. Seeing, however, nothing but difficulties and no hope of reconciliationon either side, they knew not what other course to take than to dojustice, whatever the consequences might be. They resolved, accordingly, in the month of April, that the decree of 1791, which had been both madeand reversed by the preceding Assembly in the same year, should standgood. They restored therefore the People of Colour to the privilegeswhich had been before voted to them, and appointed Santhonax, Polverel, and another, to repair in person to St. Domingo, with a large body oftroops, and to act there as commissioners, and, among other things, toenforce the decree and to keep the peace. 

In the year 1793, the same divisions and the same bad blood continuing, notwithstanding the arrival of the commissioners, a very trivial matter, viz. A quarrel between a _Mulatto_ and a _White man_ (an officer in theFrench marine), gave rise to new disasters. This quarrel took place onthe 20th of June. On the same day the seamen left their ships in theroads, and came on shore, and made common cause of the affair with thewhite inhabitants of the town. On the other side were opposed theMulattos and other People of Colour, and these were afterwards joined bysome insurgent Blacks. The battle lasted nearly two days. During thistime the arsenal was taken and plundered, and some thousands were killedin the streets, and more than half the town was burnt. Thecommissioners, who were spectators of this horrible scene, and who haddone all they could to restore peace, escaped unhurt, but they were leftupon a heap of ruins, and with but little more power than the authoritywhich their commission gave them. They had only about a thousand troopsleft in the place. They determined, therefore, under thesecircumstances, to call in the Negro Slaves in the neighbourhood to theirassistance. They issued a proclamation in consequence, by which _theypromised to give freedom to all the Blacks who were willing to rangethemselves under the banners of the Republic_. This was the firstproclamation made by public authority for emancipating slaves in St. Domingo. It is usually called the Proclamation of Santhonax, though bothcommissioners had a hand in it; and sometimes, in allusion to the placewhere it was issued (the Cape), the Proclamation of the North. Theresult of it was, that a considerable number of slaves came in and wereenfranchised. 

Soon after this transaction Polverel left his colleague Santhonax at theCape, and went in his capacity of commissioner to Port au Prince, thecapital of the West. Here he found every thing quiet, and cultivation ina flourishing state. From Port au Prince he visited Les Cayes, thecapital of the South. He had not, however, been long there, before hefound that the minds of the slaves began to be in an unsettled state. They had become acquainted with what had taken place in the north, notonly with the riots at the Cape, but the proclamation of Santhonax. Nowthis proclamation, though it sanctioned freedom only for a particular ortemporary purpose, did not exclude it from any particular quarter. Theterms therefore appeared to be open to all who would accept them. Polverel therefore, seeing the impression which it had begun to makeupon the minds of the slaves in these parts, was convinced thatemancipation could be neither stopped nor retarded, and that it wasabsolutely necessary for _the personal safety of the white planters_, that it should be extended _to the whole island_. He was so convinced ofthe necessity of this, _that he drew up a proclamation_ without furtherdelay _to that effect_, and _put it into circulation_. He dated it fromLes Cayes. He exhorted the planters to patronize it. He advised them, ifthey wished to avoid the most serious calamities, to concur themselvesin the proposition of giving freedom to their slaves. He then caused aregister to be opened at the Government house to receive the signaturesof all those who should approve of his advice. It was remarkable thatall the proprietors in these parts inscribed their names in the book. Hethen caused a similar register to be opened at Port au Prince for theWest. Here the same disposition was found to prevail. All the planters, except one, gave in their signatures. They had become pretty generallyconvinced by this time, that their own personal safety was connectedwith the measure. It may be proper to observe here, that theproclamation last mentioned, which preceded these registries, though itwas the act of Polverel alone, was sanctioned afterwards by Santhonax. It is, however, usually called the Proclamation of Polverel or of LesCayes. It came out in September 1793. We may now add, that in the monthof February 1794, the Conventional Assembly of France, though probablyignorant of what the commissioners had now done, passed a decree for theabolition of slavery throughout _the whole of the French colonies_. Thusthe Government of the mother-country, without knowing it, confirmedfreedom to those upon whom it had been bestowed by the commissioners. This decree put therefore _the finishing stroke to the whole_. Itcompleted the emancipation of the _whole slave population of St. Domingo_. 

Having now given a concise history of the abolition of slavery in St. Domingo, I shall inquire how those who were liberated on these severaloccasions conducted themselves after this change in their situation. Itis of great importance to us to know, whether they used their freedomproperly, or whether they abused it. 

With respect to those emancipated by Santhonax in the North, we havenothing to communicate. They were made free for military purposes only;and we have no clue whereby we can find out what became of themafterwards. 

With respect to those who were emancipated next in the South, and thosedirectly afterwards in the West, by the proclamation of Polverel, we areenabled to give a very pleasing account. Fortunately for our views, Colonel Malenfant, who was resident in the island at the time, has madeus acquainted with their general conduct and character. His account, though short, is quite sufficient for our purpose. Indeed it is highlysatisfactory[6]. "After this public act of emancipation, " says he, (byPolverel, ) "the Negroes _remained quiet_ both _in the South and in theWest_, and they _continued to work upon all the plantations_. There wereestates, indeed, which had neither owners nor managers resident uponthem, for some of these had been put into prison by Montbrun; andothers, fearing the same fate, had fled to the quarter which had justbeen given up to the English. Yet upon these estates, though abandoned, the Negroes _continued their labours_, where there were any, eveninferior, agents to guide them; and on those estates, where no white menwere left to direct them, they betook themselves to the planting ofprovisions; but upon _all the plantations_ where the Whites resided, theBlacks _continued to labour as quietly as before_. " A little further onin the work, ridiculing the notion entertained in France, that theNegroes would not work without compulsion, he takes occasion to alludeto other Negroes, who had been liberated by the same proclamation, butwho were more immediately under his own eye and cognizance[7]. "If, "says he, "you will take care not to speak to them of their return toslavery, but talk to them about their liberty, you may with this latterword chain them down to their labour. How did Toussaint succeed? How didI succeed also before his time in the plain of the Cul de Sac, and onthe Plantation Gouraud, more than eight months after liberty had beengranted (by Polverel) to the slaves? Let those who knew me at that time, and even the Blacks themselves, be asked. They will all reply, that _nota single Negro_ upon that plantation, consisting of more than fourhundred and fifty labourers, _refused to work_; and yet this plantationwas thought to be under the worst discipline, and the slaves the mostidle, of any in the plain. I, myself, inspired the same activity intothree other plantations, of which I had the management. "

The above account is far beyond any thing that could have beenexpected. Indeed, it is most gratifying. We find that the liberatedNegroes, _both in the South and the West_, continued to work upon their_old plantations_, and for their _old masters_; that there was also _aspirit of industry_ among them, and that they gave no uneasiness totheir employers; for they are described as continuing to work _asquietly as before_. Such was the conduct of the Negroes for the firstnine months after their liberation, or up to the middle of 1794. Let uspursue the subject, and see how they conducted themselves after thisperiod. 

During the year 1795 and part of 1796 I learn nothing about them, neither good, nor bad, nor indifferent, though I have ransacked theFrench historians for this purpose. Had there, however, been any thingin the way of _outrage_, I should have heard of it; and let me take thisopportunity of setting my readers right, if, for want of knowing thedates of occurrences, they should have connected _certain outrages_, which assuredly took place in St. Domingo, _with the emancipation of theslaves_. The great massacres and conflagrations, which have made sofrightful a picture in the history of this unhappy island, had been alleffected _before the proclamations_ of Santhonax and Polverel. They hadall taken place _in the days of slavery_, or before the year 1794, thatis, before the great conventional decree of the mother country wasknown. They had been occasioned, too, _not originally by the slavesthemselves_, but by quarrels between _the white and coloured planters_, and between the _royalists_ and the _revolutionists_, who, for thepurpose of reeking their vengeance upon each other, called in the aid oftheir respective slaves; and as to the insurgent Negroes of the North, who filled that part of the colony so often with terror and dismay, theywere originally put in motion, according to Malenfant, under _theauspices of the royalists_ themselves, to strengthen their own cause, and _to put down the partizans of the French revolution_. When JeanFrançois and Biassou commenced the insurrection, there were many _whiteroyalists_ with them, and the Negroes were made to wear the _whitecockade_. I repeat, then, that during the years 1795 and 1796, I canfind nothing in the History of St. Domingo, wherewith to reproach theemancipated Negroes in the way of outrage[8]. There is every reason, onthe other hand, to believe, that they conducted themselves, during thisperiod, in as orderly a manner as before. 

I come now to the latter part of the year 1796; and here happily a clueis furnished me, by which I have an opportunity of pursuing my inquirywith pleasure. We shall find, that from this time there was no want ofindustry in those who had been emancipated, nor want of obedience inthem as hired servants: they maintained, on the other hand, arespectable character. Let us appeal first to Malenfant. "The colony, "says he[9], "was _flourishing under Toussaint. The Whites lived happilyand in peace upon their estates, and the Negroes continued to work forthem_. " Now Toussaint came into power, being general-in-chief of thearmies of St. Domingo, a little before the end of the year 1796, andremained in power till the year 1802, or till the invasion of the islandby the French expedition of Buonaparte under Leclerc. Malenfant meanstherefore to state, that from the latter end of 1796 to 1802, a periodof six years, the planters or farmers kept possession of their estates;that they lived upon them, and that they lived upon them peaceably, thatis, without interruption or disturbance from any one; and, finally, thatthe Negroes, though they had been all set free, continued to be theirlabourers. Can there be any account more favourable to our views thanthis, after so sudden an emancipation. 

I may appeal next to General Lacroix, who published his "Memoirs for aHistory of St. Domingo, " at Paris, in 1819. He informs us, that whenSanthonax, who had been recalled to France by the Government there, returned to the colony in 1796, "_he was astonished at the state inwhich he found it on his return_. " This, says Lacroix[10], "was owing toToussaint, who, while he had succeeded in establishing perfect order anddiscipline among the black troops, had succeeded also in making theblack labourers return to the plantations, there to resume the drudgeryof cultivation. "

But the same author tells us, that in the next year (1797) the mostwonderful progress had been made in agriculture. He uses theseremarkable words: "_The colony_, " says he[11], "_marched, as byenchantment, towards its ancient splendour; cultivation prospered; everyday produced perceptible proofs of its progress. The city of the Capeand the plantations of the North rose up again visibly to the eye_. " NowI am far from wishing to attribute all this wonderful improvement, thisdaily visible progress in agriculture, to the mere act of theemancipation of the slaves in St. Domingo. I know that many othercircumstances which I could specify, if I had room, contributed towardsits growth; but I must be allowed to maintain, that unless the Negroes, who were then free, _had done their part as labourers_, both by workingregularly and industriously, and by obeying the directions of theirsuperintendants or masters, the colony could never have gone on, asrelates to cultivation, with the rapidity described. 

The next witness to whom I shall appeal, is the estimable GeneralVincent, who lives now at Paris, though at an advanced age. Vincent wasa colonel, and afterwards a general of brigade of artillery in St. Domingo. He was stationed there during the time both of Santhonax andToussaint. He was also a proprietor of estates in the island. He was theman who planned the renovation of its agriculture after the abolition ofslavery, and one of the great instruments in bringing it to theperfection mentioned by Lacroix. In the year 1801, he was called upon byToussaint to repair to Paris, to lay before the Directory the newconstitution, which had been agreed upon in St. Domingo. He obeyed thesummons. It happened, that he arrived in France just at the moment ofthe peace of Amiens; here he found, to his inexpressible surprise andgrief, that Buonaparte was preparing an immense armament, to becommanded by Leclerc, for the purpose of _restoring slavery in St. Domingo_. He lost no time in seeing the First Consul, and he had thecourage to say at this interview what, perhaps, no other man in Francewould have dared to say at this particular moment. He remonstratedagainst the expedition; he told him to his face, that though the armydestined for this purpose was composed of the brilliant conquerors ofEurope, it could do nothing in the Antilles. It would most assuredly bedestroyed by the climate of St. Domingo, even though it should bedoubtful, whether it would not be destroyed by the Blacks. He stated, asanother argument against the expedition, that it was totallyunnecessary, and therefore criminal; for that every thing _was going onwell_ in St. Domingo. _The proprietors were in peaceable possession oftheir estates; cultivation was making a rapid progress; the Blacks wereindustrious, and beyond example happy_. He conjured him, therefore, inthe name of humanity, not to reverse this beautiful state of things. Butalas! his efforts were ineffectual. The die had been cast: and the onlyreward, which he received from Buonaparte for his manly and faithfulrepresentations, was banishment to the Isle of Elba. 

Having carried my examination into the conduct of the Negroes aftertheir liberation to 1802, or to the invasion of the island by Leclerc, Imust now leave a blank for nearly two years, or till the year 1804. Itcannot be expected during a war, in which every man was called to armsto defend his own personal liberty, and that of every individual of hisfamily, that we should see plantations cultivated as quietly as before, or even cultivated at all. But this was not the fault of _theemancipated Negroes_, but of _their former masters_. It was owing to theprejudices of the latter, that this frightful invasion took place;prejudices, indeed, common to all planters, where slavery obtains, from the very nature of their situation, and upon which I have made myobservations in a former place. Accustomed to the use of arbitrarypower, they could no longer brook the loss of their whips. Accustomedagain to look down upon the Negroes as an inferior race of beings, or asthe reptiles of the earth, they could not bear, peaceably as these hadconducted themselves, to come into that familiar contact with them, as_free labourers_, which the change of their situation required. Theyconsidered them, too, as property lost, but which was to be recovered. In an evil hour, they prevailed upon Buonaparte, by falserepresentations and _promises of pecuniary support_, to restore thingsto their former state. The hellish expedition at length arrived upon theshores of St. Domingo:--a scene of blood and torture followed, _such ashistory had never before disclosed_, and compared with which, _thoughplanned and executed by Whites[12]_, all the barbarities said to havebeen perpetrated by the _insurgent Blacks_ of the North, _amountcomparatively to nothing_. In fine, the French were driven from theisland. Till that time, the planters retained their property, and thenit was, but not till then, that they lost their all; it cannot, therefore, be expected, as I have said before, that I should have anything to say in favour of the industry or good order of the emancipatedNegroes, _during such a convulsive period_. 

In the year 1804, Dessalines was proclaimed emperor of this fineterritory. Here I resume the thread of my history, (though it will bebut for a moment, ) in order that I may follow it to its end. In processof time, the black troops, containing the Negroes in question, weredisbanded, except such as were retained for the peace-establishment ofthe army. They, who were disbanded, returned to cultivation. As theywere free when they became soldiers, so they continued to be free whenthey became labourers again. From that time to this, there has been nowant of subordination or industry among them. They or their descendantsare the persons, by whom the plains and valleys of St. Domingo _arestill cultivated_, and they are reported to follow their occupationsstill, and with _as fair a character_ as other free labourers in anyother quarter of the globe. 

We have now seen, that the emancipated Negroes never abused theirliberty, from the year 1793 (the era of their general emancipation) tothe present day, a period of _thirty_ years. An important question thenseems to force itself upon us, "What were the measures taken after sofrightful an event, as that of emancipation, to secure the tranquillityand order which has been described, or to rescue the planters and thecolony from ruin?" I am bound to answer this, if I can, were it only togratify the curiosity of my readers; but more particularly when Iconsider, that if emancipation should ever be in contemplation in ourown colonies, it will be desirable to have all the light possible uponthat subject, and particularly of precedent or example. It appears then, that the two commissioners, Santhonax and Polverel, aware of themischief which might attend their decrees, were obliged to take the bestmeasures they could devise to prevent it. One of their first steps wasto draw up a short code of rules to be observed upon the plantations. These rules were printed and made public. They were also ordered to beread aloud to all the Negroes upon every estate, for which purpose thelatter were to be assembled at a particular hour once a week. Thepreamble to these regulations insisted upon _the necessity of working, without which everything would go to ruin_. Among the articles, the twothe most worthy of our notice were, that the labourers were to beobliged to hire themselves to their masters for _not less than a year_, at the end of which (September), but not before, they might quit theirservice, and engage with others; and that they were to receive _a thirdpart_ of the produce of the estate, as a recompense for their labour. These two were _fundamental_ articles. As to the minor, they were notalike upon every estate. This code of the commissioners subsisted forabout three years. 

Toussaint, when he came into power, reconsidered this subject, andadopted a code of rules of his own. His first object was to preventoppression on the part of the master or employer, and yet to secureobedience on the part of the labourer. Conceiving that there could be noliberty where any one man had the power of punishing another at hisdiscretion, he took away from every master the use of the whip, and ofthe chain, and of every other instrument of correction, either byhimself or his own order: he took away, in fact, _all power of arbitrarypunishment_. Every master offending against this regulation was to besummoned, on complaint by the labourer, before a magistrate or intendantof police, who was to examine into the case, and to act accordingly. Conceiving, on the other hand, that a just subordination ought to bekept up, and that, wherever delinquency occurred, punishment ought tofollow, he ordained, that all labourers offending against the plantationlaws, or not performing their contracts, should be brought before thesame magistrate or intendant of police, who should examine them touchingsuch delinquency, and decide as in the former case: thus he administeredjustice without respect of persons. It must be noticed, that allpunishments were to be executed by a civil officer, a sort of publicexecutioner, that they might be considered as punishments _by thestate_. Thus he _kept up discipline_ on the plantations, _withoutlessening authority_ on the one hand, and _without invading the libertyof individuals_ on the other. 

Among his plantation offences was idleness on the part of the labourer. A man was not to receive wages from his master, and to do nothing. Hewas obliged to perform a reasonable quantity of work, or be punished. Another offence was absence without leave, which was considered asdesertion. 

Toussaint differed from the commissioners, as to the length of time forwhich labourers should engage themselves to masters. He thought itunwise to allow the former, in the infancy of their liberty, to getnotions of change and rambling at the end of every year. He ordained, therefore, that they should be attached to the plantations, and made, though free labourers, a sort of _adscripti glebae_ for five years. 

He differed again from the commissioners, as to the quantum ofcompensation for their labour. He thought one-third of the produce toomuch, seeing that the planter had another third to pay to theGovernment. He ordered, therefore, one-fourth to the labourer, but thiswas in the case only, where the labourer clothed and maintained himself:where he did not do this, he was entitled to a fourth only nominally, for out of this his master was to make a deduction for board andclothing. 

The above is all I have been able to collect of the code of Toussaint, which, under his auspices, had the surprising effect of preservingtranquillity and order, and of keeping up a spirit of industry on theplantations of St. Domingo, at a time when only idleness and anarchywere to have been expected. It was in force when Leclerc arrived withhis invading army, and it continued in force when the French army werebeaten and Negro-liberty confirmed. From Toussaint it passed toDessalines, and from Dessalines to Christophe and Petion, and from thetwo latter to Boyer; and it is the code therefore which regulates, and Ibelieve with but very little variation, the relative situation of masterand servant in husbandry at this present hour. 

But it is time that I should now wind up the case before us. And, first, will any one say that this case is not analogous to that which we havein contemplation? Let us remember that the number of slaves liberated bythe French decrees in St. Domingo was very little short of 500, 000persons, and that this was nearly equal to the number _of all theslaves_ then in the British West Indian Islands when put together. Butif there be a want of analogy, the difference lies on my side of thequestion. I maintain, that emancipation in _St. Domingo_ was attendedwith _far more hazard_ to persons and property, and with _far greaterdifficulties_, than it could possibly be, if attempted _in our ownislands_. Can we forget that by the decree of Polverel, sanctionedafterwards by the Convention, all the slaves _were made free at once_, or _in a single day_? No notice was given of the event, and of course_no preparation_ could be made for it. They were released _suddenly_from _all their former obligations and restraints_. They were let looseupon the Whites, their masters, with _all the vices of slavery_ uponthem. What was to have been expected but the dissolution of allcivilized society, with the reign of barbarism and terror? Now all I askfor with respect to the slaves in our own islands is, that they shouldbe emancipated _by degrees_, or that they should be made to pass througha certain course of discipline, _as through a preparatory school_, tofit them for the right use of their freedom. Again, can we forget theunfavourable circumstances, in which the slaves of St. Domingo wereplaced, for a year or two before their liberation, in another point ofview? The island at this juncture was a prey to _political discord, civil war_, and _foreign invasion_, at the same time. Their masters werepolitically at variance with each other, as they were white or colouredpersons, or republicans or royalists. They were quarrelling and fightingwith each other, and shedding each other's blood. The English, who werein possession of the strong maritime posts, were alarming the country bytheir incursions: they, the slaves, had been trained up to the samepolitical animosities. They had been made to take the side of theirrespective masters, and to pass through scenes of violence andbloodshed. Now, whenever emancipation is to be proposed in our owncolonies, I anticipate neither _political parties_, nor _civil wars_, nor _foreign invasion_, but a time of _tranquillity and peace_. Who thenwill be bold enough to say, after these remarks, that there could be anything like the danger and difficulties in emancipating the slaves there, which existed when the slaves of St. Domingo were made free? But someobjector may say, after all, "There is one point in which your analogyis deficient. While Toussaint was in power, the Government of St. Domingo was a _black_ one, and the Blacks would be more willing tosubmit to the authority of a _black_ (their own) Government, than of a_white one_. Hence there Were less disorders after emancipation in St. Domingo, than would have probably occurred, had it been tried in our ownislands. " But to such an objector I should reply, that he knows nothingof the history of St. Domingo. The Government of that island was French, or _white_, from the very infancy of emancipation to the arrival of theexpedition of Leclerc. The slaves were made free under the governmentof Santhonax and Polverel. When these retired, other _white_commissioners succeeded them. When Toussaint came into power, he was notsupreme; Generals Hedouille, Vincent, and others, had a share in thegovernment. Toussaint himself _received his commission from the FrenchDirectory_, and acted under it. He caused it every where to be madeknown, but particularly among his officers and troops, that he retainedthe island for the _French Government_, and that _France_ was the_mother-country_. 

A sixth class of slaves emancipated in bodies may comprehend those, whobegan to be liberated about eighteen months ago in the newly-erectedState of Columbia. General Bolivar began the great work himself byenfranchising his own slaves, to the number of between seven and eighthundred. But he was not satisfied with this; for believing, as he did, that to hold persons in slavery at all, was not only morally wrong, bututterly inconsistent with the character of men fighting for their ownliberty, he brought the subject before the Congress of Venezuela. TheCongress there, after having duly considered it, drew up resolutionsaccordingly, which it recommended to the first general Congress ofColumbia, when it should be assembled. This last congress, which met atthe time expected, passed a decree for emancipation on the 19th of July1821. All slaves, who had assisted, in a military capacity, in achievingthe independence of the republic, were at once declared free. All thechildren of slaves, born after the said 19th of July, were to be free insuccession as they attained the eighteenth year of their age. A fund wasestablished at the same time by a general tax upon property, to pay theowners of such young slaves the expense of bringing them up to theireighteenth year, and for putting them afterwards to trades and usefulprofessions; and the same fund was made applicable to the purchase ofthe freedom of adults in each district every year, during the threenational festivals in December, as far as the district-funds wouldpermit. Care, however, was to be taken to select those of the bestcharacter. It may be proper to observe, that emancipation, as aboveexplained, has been proceeding regularly, from the 19th of July 1821, according to the terms of the decree, and also according to the ancientSpanish code, which still exists, and which is made to go hand in handwith it. They who attain their eighteenth year are not allowed to go atlarge after their liberation, but are put under the charge of specialjuntas for a useful education. The adults may have land, if they desireit, or they may go where they please. The State has lately purchasedfreedom for many of the latter, who had a liking to the army. Theirfreedom is secured to them whether they remain soldiers or aredischarged. It is particularly agreeable to me to be able to say thatall, who have been hitherto emancipated, have conducted themselvessince that time with propriety. It appears by a letter from Columbia, dated 17th February 1822, about seven months after emancipation hadcommenced, addressed to James Stephen, Esq. Of London, and since madepublic, "that the slaves were all then _peaceably at work_ throughoutthe republic, as well as _the newly enfranchised_ and those originallyfree. " And it appears from the account of a gentleman of highconsideration just arrived from Columbia, in London, that up to the timeof his departure, they who had been emancipated "were _steady_ and_industrious_, and that they _had conducted themselves well without asingle exception_. " But as this is an experiment which it will yet takesixteen years to complete, it can only be called to our aid, as far asthe result of it is known. It is, however, an experiment to which, asfar as it has been made, we may appeal with satisfaction: for when weconsider that _eighteen_ months have elapsed, and that _many[13]thousands_ have been freed since the passing of the decree and the dateof the last accounts from Columbia, the decree cannot but be consideredto have had a sufficient trial. 

The seventh class may comprehend the slaves of the Honourable JoshuaSteele, whose emancipation was attempted in Barbadoes between the years1783 and 1790. 

It appears that Mr. Steele lived several years in London. He wasVice-president of the London Society of Arts, Manufactures, andCommerce, and a person of talent and erudition. He was the proprietor ofthree estates in Barbadoes. His agent there used to send him accountsannually of his concerns; but these were latterly so ruinous, not onlyin a pecuniary point of view, but as they related to what Mr. Steelecalled the _destruction_ of his Negroes, that he resolved, though thenat the advanced age of eighty, to go there, and to look into his affairshimself. Accordingly he embarked, and arrived there early in the year1780. 

Mr. Steele had not been long in Barbadoes, before he saw enough toconvince him that there was something radically wrong in the managementof the slaves there, and he was anxious to try, as well for the sake ofhumanity as of his own interest, to effect a change in it. But how washe to accomplish this[14]? "He considered within himself how difficultit would be, nay, impossible, for a single proprietor to attempt sogreat a novelty as to bring about an alteration of manners and customsprotected by iniquitous laws, and to which the gentlemen of the countrywere reconciled as to the best possible for amending the indocile andintractable ignorance of Negro slaves. " It struck him however, among theexpedients which occurred, that he might be able to form a Society, similar to the one in London, for the purpose of improving the arts, manufactures, and commerce of Barbadoes; and if so, he "indulged a hopethat by means of it conferences might be introduced on patrioticsubjects, in the course of which new ideas and new opinions might softenthe national bigotry, so far as to admit some discourses on thepossibility of amendment in the mode of governing slaves. " Following upthis idea, he brought it at length to bear. A Society was formed, inconsequence, of gentlemen of the island in 1781. The subjects under itsdiscussion became popular. It printed its first minutes in 1782, whichwere very favourably received, and it seemed to bid fair after this toanswer the benevolent views of its founder. 

During this time, a space of two years, Mr. Steele had been gaining apractical knowledge of the West Indian husbandry, and also a practicalknowledge of the temper, disposition, habits, and customs of the slaves. He had also read much and thought much. It may be inferred from hiswritings, that three questions especially had employed his mind. 1. Whether he could not do away all arbitrary punishments and yet keepup discipline among the slaves? 2. Whether he could not carry on theplantation-work through the stimulus of reward? 3. Whether he could notchange slavery into a condition of a milder name and character, so thatthe slaves should be led by degrees to the threshold of liberty, fromwhence they might step next, without hazard, into the rank of free men, if circumstances should permit and encourage such a procedure. Mr. Steele thought, after mature consideration, that he could accomplish allthese objects, and he resolved to make the experiments gradually uponhis own estates. 

At the end of the year 1783 he put the first of these questions totrial. "I took, " says he, "the whips and all power of arbitrarypunishment from all the overseers and their white servants, whichoccasioned _my chief overseer to resign_, and I soon dismissed all hisdeputies, who _could not bear the loss of their whips_; but at the sametime, that a proper subordination and obedience to lawful orders andduty should be preserved, I created a _magistracy out of the Negroes_themselves, and appointed a court or jury of the elder Negroes orhead-men for trial and punishment of all casual offences, (and thesecourts were always to be held in my presence, or in that of my newsuperintendant, ) which court _very soon grew respectable_. Seven ofthese men being of the rank of drivers in their different departments, were also constituted _rulers_, as magistrates over all the gang, andwere charged to see at all times that nothing should go wrong in theplantations; but that on all necessary occasions they should assembleand consult together how any such wrong should be immediately rectified;and I made it known to all the gangs, that the authority of these rulersshould supply the absence or vacancy of an overseer in all cases; theymaking daily or occasional reports of all occurrences to the proprietoror his delegate for his approbation or his orders. "

It appears that Mr. Steele was satisfied with this his first step, andhe took no other for some time. At length, in about another year, heventured upon the second. He "tried whether he could not obtain thelabour of his Negroes by _voluntary_ means instead of the old method byviolence. " On a certain day he offered a pecuniary reward for holingcanes, which is the most laborious operation in West Indian husbandry. "He offered two-pence half-penny (currency), or about three-halfpence(sterling), per day, with the usual allowance to holers of a dram withmolasses, to any twenty-five of his Negroes, both men and women, whowould undertake to hole for canes an acre per day, at about 96-1/2 holesfor each Negro to the acre. The whole gang were ready to undertake it;but only fifty of the volunteers were accepted, and many among them werethose who _on much lighter occasions_ had usually pleaded _infirmity andinability_: but the ground having been moist, they holed twelve acreswithin six days with great ease, having had _an hour_, more or less, _every evening to spare_, and the like experiment was repeated with thelike success. More experiments with such premiums on weeding and deephoeing were made by task-work per acre, and all succeeded in likemanner, their premiums being all punctually paid them in proportion totheir performance. But afterwards some of the same people being put_without premium_ to weed on a loose cultivated soil in the commonmanner, _eighteen_ Negroes did not do as much in a given time as _six_had performed of the like sort of work a few days before with thepremium of two-pence half-penny. " The next year Mr. Steele made similarexperiments. Success attended him again; and from this time task-work, or the _voluntary_ system, became the general practice of the estate. Mr. Steele did not proceed to put the third question to trial till theyear 1789. The Society of Arts, which he had instituted in 1781, hadgreatly disappointed him. Some of the members, looking back to thediscussions which had taken place on the subject of Slavery, began tothink that they had gone too far as slaveholders in their admissions. They began to insinuate, "that they had been taken in, under thespecious appearance of promoting the arts, manufactures, and commerce ofBarbadoes, _to promote dangerous designs against its established lawsand customs_. " Discussions therefore of this sort became too unpopularto be continued. It was therefore not till Mr. Steele found, that he hadno hope of assistance from this Society, and that he was obliged todepend solely upon himself, that he put in force the remainder of hisgeneral plan. He had already (in 1783), as we stated some time ago, abolished arbitrary punishment and instituted a Negro-magistracy; andsince that time (in 1785) he had adopted the system of _working by thepiece_. But the remaining part of his plan went the length of _alteringthe condition_ of the slaves themselves; and it is of this alteration, amost important one (in 1789), that I am now to speak. 

Mr. Steele took the hint for the particular mode of improving thecondition of his slaves, which I am going to describe, from the practiceof our Anglo-Saxon ancestors in the days of Villainage, which, he says, was "the most wise and excellent mode of civilizing savage slaves. "There were in those days three classes of villains. The first or lowestconsisted of villains in gross, who were alienable at pleasure. Thesecond of villains regardent, who were _adscripti glebae_, or attachedas freehold property to the soil. And the third or last of copyholdbondmen, who had tenements of land, for which they were bound to pay inservices. The villains first mentioned, or those of the lowest class, had all these gradations to pass through, from the first into thesecond, and from the second into the third, before they could becomefree men. This was the model, from which Mr. Steele resolved to borrow, when he formed his plan for changing the condition of his slaves. Me didnot, however, adopt it throughout, but he chose out of it what hethought would be most suitable to his purpose, and left the rest. We maynow see what the plan was, when put together, from the followingaccount. 

In the year 1789 he erected his plantations into _manors_. It appearsthat the Governor of Barbadoes had the power by charter, with theconsent of the majority of the council, of dividing the island intomanors, lordships, and precincts, and of making freeholders; and thoughthis had not yet been done, Mr. Steele hoped, as a member of council, tohave influence sufficient to get his own practice legalized in time. Presuming upon this, he registered in the _manor_-book all his adultmale slaves as _copyholders_. He then gave to these separate tenementsof lands, which they were to occupy, and upon which they were to raisewhatever they might think most advantageous to their support. Thesetenements consisted of half an acre of plantable and productive land toeach adult, a quantity supposed to be sufficient with industry tofurnish him and his family with provision and clothing. The tenementswere made descendible to the heirs of the occupiers or copyholders, thatis, to their children _on the plantations_; for no part of thesuccession was to go out of the plantations to the issue of any foreignwife, and, in case of no such heir, they were to fall in to the lord tobe re-granted according to his discretion. It was also inscribed thatany one of the copyholders, who would not perform his services to themanor (the refractory and others), was to forfeit his tenement and hisprivileged rank, and to go back to villain in gross and to be subject tocorporal punishment as before. "Thus, " says Mr. Steele, "we run no riskwhatever in making the experiment by giving such copyhold-tenements toall our well-deserving Negroes, and to all in general, when they appearto be worthy of that favour. "

Matters having been adjusted so far, Mr. Steele introduced the practiceof _rent_ and _wages_. He put an annual rent upon each tenement, whichhe valued at so many days' labour. He set a rent also upon personalservice, as due by the copyholder to his master in his former quality ofslave, seeing that his master or predecessor had purchased a property inhim, and this be valued in the same manner. He then added the two rentstogether, making so many days' work altogether, and estimated them inthe current money of the time. Having done this, he fixed a daily wagesor pay to be received by the copyholders for the work which they were todo. They were to work 260 days in the year for him, and to have 48besides Sundays for themselves. He reduced these days' work also tocurrent money. These wages he fixed at such a rate, that "they should bemore than equivalent to the rent of their copyholds and the rent oftheir personal services when put together, in order to hold out to theman evident and profitable incentive to their industry. " It appears thatthe rent of the tenement, half an acre, was fixed at the rate of 9 l. Currency, or between forty and fifty shillings sterling per acre, andthe wages for a man belonging to the first gang at 7-1/2d. Currencyor 6d. Sterling per day. As to the rent for the personal services, itis not mentioned. 

With respect to labour and things connected with it, Mr. Steele enteredthe following among the local laws in the _court-roll_ of the tenantsand tenements. The copyholders were not to work for other masterswithout the leave of the lord. They were to work ten hours per day. Ifthey worked over and above that time, they were to be paid for everyhour a tenth part of their daily wages, and they were also to forfeit atenth for every hour they were absent or deficient in the work of theday. All sorts of work, however, were to be reduced, as far as it couldbe done by observation and estimation, to equitable task-work. Hoes wereto be furnished to the copyholders in the first instance; but they wereto renew them, when worn out, at their own expense. The other tools wereto be lent them, but to be returned to the storekeeper at night, or tobe paid for in default of so doing. Mr. Steele was to continue thehospital and medical attendance at his own expense as before. 

Mr. Steele, having now rent to receive and wages to pay, was obliged tosettle a new mode of accounting between the plantation and thelabourers. "He brought, therefore, all the minor crops of theplantation, such as corn, grain of all sorts, yams, eddoes, besides rumand molasses, into a regular cash account by weight and measure, whichhe charged to the copyhold-storekeeper at market prices of the currenttime, and the storekeeper paid them at the same prices to such of thecopyholders as called for them in part of wages, in whose option it wasto take either cash or goods, according to their earnings, to answer alltheir wants. Rice, salt, salt fish, barrelled pork, Cork butter, flour, bread, biscuit, candles, tobacco and pipes, and all species of clothing, were provided and furnished from the store at the lowest market prices. An account of what was paid for daily subsistence, and of what stood intheir arrears to answer the rents of their lands, the fines andforfeitures for delinquencies, their head-levy and all other casualdemands, was accurately kept in columns with great simplicity, and inbooks, which checked each other. "

Such was the plan of Mr. Steele, and I have the pleasure of being ableto announce, that the result of it was _highly satisfactory to himself_. In the year 1788, when only the first and second part of it had beenreduced to practice, he spoke of it thus:--"A plantation, " says he, "ofbetween seven and eight hundred acres has been governed by fixed lawsand a Negro-court _for about five years with great success_. In thisplantation no overseer or white servant is allowed to lift his handagainst a Negro, nor can he arbitrarily order a punishment. Fixed lawsand a court or jury of their peers _keep all in order_ without the illeffect of sudden and intemperate passions. " And in the year 1790, abouta year after the last part of his plan had been put to trial, he says ina letter to Dr. Dickson, "My copyholders have succeeded beyond myexpectation. " This was his last letter to that gentleman, for he died inthe beginning of the next year. Mr. Steele went over to Barbadoes, as Ihave said before, in the year 1780, and he was then in the eightiethyear of his age. He began his humane and glorious work in 1783, and hefinished it in 1789. It took him, therefore, six years to bring hisNegroes to the state of vassalage described, or to that state fromwhence he was sure that they might be transferred without danger in nodistant time, to the rank of freemen, if it should be thought desirable. He lived one year afterwards to witness the success of his labours. Hehad accomplished, therefore, all he wished, and he died in the year1791, in the ninety-first year of his age. 

It may be proper now, and indeed useful to the cause which I advocate, to stop for a moment, just to observe the similarity of sentiment of twogreat men, quite unknown to each other; one of whom (Mr. Steele) wasconcerned in preparing Negro-slaves for freedom, and the other(Toussaint) in devising the best mode of managing them after they hadbeen suddenly made free. 

It appears, first, that they were both agreed in this point, viz. Thatthe _first step_ to be taken in either case, was _the total abolition ofarbitrary punishment_. 

It appears, secondly, that they were nevertheless both agreed again asto the necessity of punishing delinquents, but that they adopteddifferent ways of bringing them to justice. Toussaint referred them to_magistrates_, but Mr. Steele _to a Negro-court_. I should prefer thelatter expedient; first, because a Negro-court may be always at hand, whereas magistrates may live at a distance from the plantations, and notbe always at home. Secondly, because the holding of a Negro-court wouldgive consequence to those Negroes who should compose it, not only intheir own eyes but in the eyes of others; and every thing, that mightelevate the Black character, would be useful to those who were _on theroad to emancipation_; and, lastly, because there must be some thingsatisfactory and consoling to the accused to be tried by their peers. 

It appears, thirdly, that both of them were agreed again in theprinciple of making the Negroes, in either case, _adscripti glebae_; orattached to the soil, though they might differ as to the length of timeof such ascription. 

And it appears, lastly, that they were agreed in another, and this theonly remaining point, viz. On the necessity of holding out a stimulus toeither, so as to excite in them a very superior spirit of industry toany they had known before. They resorted, however to different means toeffect this. Toussaint gave the labourers one _fourth_ of the produceof the land; deducting board and clothing. Mr. Steele, on the otherhand, gave them _daily wages_. I do not know which to prefer; but theplan of Mr. Steele is most consonant to the English practice. 

But to return. It is possible that some objector may rise up here asbefore, and say that even the case, which I have now detailed, is not, strictly speaking, analogous to that which we have in contemplation, andmay argue thus:--"The case of Mr. Steele is not a complete precedent, because his slaves were never _fully_ emancipated. He had brought themonly to _the threshold_ of liberty, but no further. They were only_copyholders_, but _not free men_. " To this I reply, first, That Mr. Steele _accomplished all that he ever aimed at_. I have his own wordsfor saying, that so long as the present iniquitous slave-laws, and thedistinction of colour, should exist, it would be imprudent to gofurther. I reply again, That the partisans of emancipation would behappy indeed, if they could see the day when our West Indian slavesshould arrive at the rank and condition of the copyholders of Mr. Steele. They wish for no other freedom than that which is _compatiblewith the joint interest of the master and the slave_. At the same timethey must maintain, that the copyholders of Mr. Steele had been broughtso near to the condition of free men, that a removal from one into theother, after a certain time, seemed more like a thing of course than amatter to be attended either with difficulty or danger: forunquestionably their moral character must have been improved. If theyhad ceased for seven years to feel themselves degraded by arbitrarypunishment, they must have acquired some little independence of mind. Ifthey had been paid for their labour, they must have acquired somethinglike a spirit of industry. If they had been made to pay rent for theircottage and land, and to maintain themselves, they must have been madeto _look beforehand_, to _think for themselves and families from day today_, and to _provide against the future_, all which operations of themind are the characteristics only of free men. The case, therefore, ofMr. Steele is most important and precious: for it shows us, first, thatthe emancipation, which we seek, is a thing which _may be effected_. Theplan of Mr. Steele was put in force in _a British_ Island, and that, which was done in one British Island, may under similar circumstances_be done again in the same, as well as in another_. It shows us, again, _how_ this emancipation may be brought about. The process is so clearlydetailed, that any one may follow it. It is also a case forencouragement, inasmuch as it was attended with success. 

I have now considered no less than six cases of slaves emancipated inbodies, and a seventh of slaves, who were led up to the very thresholdof freedom, comprehending altogether not less than between five and sixhundred thousand persons; and I have considered also all the objectionsthat could be reasonably advanced against them. The result is a beliefon my part, that emancipation is not only _practicable_, but that it is_practicable without danger_. The slaves, whose cases I have beenconsidering, were resident in different parts of the world. There musthave been, amongst such a vast number, persons of _all characters_. Somewere liberated, who had been _accustomed to the use of arms_. Others ata time when the land in which they sojourned was afflicted _with civiland foreign wars_; others again _suddenly_, and with _all the vicioushabits of slavery upon them_. And yet, under all these disadvantageouscircumstances, I find them all, without exception, _yielding themselvesto the will of their superiors_, so as to be brought by them _with asmuch ease and certainty into the form intended for them_, as clay in thehands of the potter is fashioned to his own model. But, if this be so, Ithink I should be chargeable with a want of common sense, were I _todoubt for a moment_, that emancipation _was not practicable_; and I amnot sure that I should not be exposed to the same charge, were I todoubt, that emancipation _was practicable without danger_. For I havenot been able to discover (and it is most remarkable) _a single failure_in any of the cases which have been produced. I have not been able todiscover throughout this vast mass of emancipated persons _a singleinstance of bad behaviour_ on their parts, not even of a refusal towork, or of disobedience to orders. Much less have I seen frightfulcommotions, or massacres, or a return of evil for evil, or revenge forpast injuries, even when they had it amply in their power. In fact, theNegro character is malleable at the European will. There is, as I haveobserved before, a singular pliability in the constitutional temper ofthe Negroes, and they have besides a quick sense of their own interest, which influences their conduct. I am convinced, that West India masterscan do what they will with their slaves; and that they may lead themthrough any changes they please, and with perfect safety to themselves, if they will only make them (the slaves) understand that they are to bebenefited thereby. 

Having now established, I hope, two of my points, first, thatemancipation is _practicable_, and, secondly, that it is _practicablewithout danger_, I proceed to show the probability that _it would beattended with profit_ to those planters who should be permitted to adoptit. I return, therefore, to the case of Mr. Steele. I give him the priorhearing on this new occasion, because I am sure that my readers will beanxious to learn something more about him; or to know what became of hisplans, or how far such humane endeavours were attended with success. Ishall begin by quoting the following expressions of Mr. Steele. "I haveemployed and amused myself, " says he, "by introducing _an entire newmode_ of governing my own slaves, for their happiness, and also _for myown profit_. " It appears, then, that Mr. Steele's new method ofmanagement was _profitable_. Let us now try to make out from his ownaccount, of what these profits consisted. 

Mr. Steele informs us, that his superintendant had obliged him to hireall his holing at 3 l. Currency, or 2 l. 2s. 10d. Sterling peracre. He was very much displeased at these repeated charges; and then itwas, that he put his second question to trial, as I have before related, viz. Whether he could not obtain the labour of his Negroes by voluntarymeans, instead of by the old method by violence. He made, therefore, anattempt to introduce task-work, or labour with an expected premium forextraordinary efforts, upon his estates. He gave his Negroes therefore asmall pecuniary reward over and above the usual allowances, and theconsequence was, as he himself says, that "the _poorest, feeblest_, andby character _the most indolent_ Negroes of the whole gang, cheerfullyperformed the holing of his land, generally said to be the mostlaborious work, for _less than a fourth part_ of the stated price paidto the undertakers for holing. " This experiment I have detailed inanother place. After this he continued the practice of task-work orpremium. He describes the operation of such a system upon the minds ofhis Negroes in the following words: "According to the vulgar mode ofgoverning Negro-slaves, they feel only the desponding fear of punishmentfor doing less than they ought, without being sensible that the settledallowance of food and clothing is given, and should be accepted, as areward for doing well, while in task-work the expectation of winning thereward, and the fear of losing it, have a double operation to exerttheir endeavours. " Mr. Steele was also benefited again in another pointof view by the new practice which he had introduced. "He was clearlyconvinced, that saving time, by doing in one day as much as wouldotherwise require three days, was _worth more than double the premium_, the _timely effects_ on vegetation _being critical_. " He found also tohis satisfaction, that "during all the operations under the premiumthere were _no disorders, no crowding to the sick-house_, as before. "

I have now to make my remarks upon this account. It shows us clearly howMr. Steele made a part of his profits. These profits consisted first ofa _saving of expense_ in his husbandry, which saving _was not made byothers_. He had his land holed _at one-fourth_ of the usual rate. Let usapply this to all the other operations of husbandry, such as weeding, deep hoeing, &c. In a large farm of nearly eight hundred acres, likehis, and we shall see how considerable the savings would be in oneyear. His Negroes again did not counterfeit sickness as before, in orderto be excused from labour, but rather wished to labour in order toobtain the reward. There was therefore no crowding to the hospitals. This constituted a _second source of saving_; for they who were in thehospitals were maintained by Mr. Steele without earning any thing, whilethey who were working in the field left to their master in their work, when they went home at night, a value equal at least to that which theyhad received from him for their day's labour. But there was anothersaving of equal importance, which Mr. Steele calls a saving of _time_, but which he might with more propriety have called a saving of _season_. This saving of season, he says, was worth _more than double thepremium_; and so it might easily have been. There are soils, everyfarmer knows, which are so constituted, that if you miss your day, youmiss your season; and, if you miss your season, you lose probably halfyour crop. The saving, therefore, of the season, by having a whole cropinstead of half an one, was _a third source of saving of money_. Now letus put all these savings together, and they will constitute a greatsaving or profit; for as these savings were made by Mr. Steele inconsequence of _his new plan_, and _were therefore not made by others_, they constituted an _extraordinary_ profit to him; or they added to theprofit, whatever it might have been, which he used to receive from theestate before his new plan was put in execution. 

But I discover other ways in which Mr. Steele was benefited, as Iadvance in the perusal of his writings. It was impossible to overlookthe following passage: "Now, " says he (alluding to his new system), "every species of provisions raised on the plantations, or bought fromthe merchants, is charged at the market-price to the copyhold-store, anddischarged by what has been paid on the several accounts of everyindividual bond-slave; whereas for all those species heretofore, I neversaw in any plantation-book of my estates any account of what became ofthem, or how they were disposed of, nor of their value, other than inthese concise words, _they were given in allowance to the Negroes andstock_. Every year, for six years past, this great plantation hasbought several hundred bushels of corn, and was scanty in allground-provisions, our produce always falling short. This year, 1790, _since the establishment of copyholders, though several less acres wereplanted_ last year in Guinea corn than usual, yet we have been able tosell _several hundred bushels_ at a high price, and _we have still agreat stock in hand_. I can place this saving to no other account, thanthat there is now an exact account kept by all produce being paid ascash to the bond-slaves; and also as all our watchmen are obliged to payfor all losses that happen on their watch, they have found it theirinterest to look well to their charge; and consequently that we havehad much less stolen from us than before this new government tookplace. "

Here then we have seen _another considerable source of saving_ to Mr. Steele, viz. That _he was not obliged to purchase any corn for hisslaves as formerly_. My readers will be able to judge better of thissaving, when I inform them of what has been the wretched policy of manyof our planters in this department of their concerns. Look over theirfarming memoranda, and you will see _sugar, sugar, sugar_, in everypage; but you may turn over leaf after leaf, before you will find thewords _provision ground_ for their slaves. By means of this wretchedpolicy, slaves have often suffered most grievously. Some of them havebeen half-starved. Starvation, too, has brought on disorders which haveultimately terminated in their death. Hence their masters have sufferedlosses, besides the expense incurred in buying what they ought to haveraised upon their own estates, and this perhaps at a dear market: and inthis wretched predicament Mr. Steele appears to have been himself whenhe first went to the estate. His slaves, he tells us, had been reducedin number by bad management. Even for six years afterwards he had beenobliged to buy several hundred bushels of corn; but in the year 1790 hehad sold several hundred bushels at a high price, and had still a greatstock on hand. And to what was all this owing? Not to an exact accountkept at the store (for some may have so misunderstood Mr. Steele); forhow could an exact account kept there, have occasioned an increase inthe produce of the earth? but, as Mr. Steele himself says, _to theestablishment of his copyholders_, or to the _alteration of thecondition_ of his slaves. His slaves did not only three times more workthan before, in consequence of the superior industry he had excitedamong them, but, by so doing, they were enabled to put the corn into theearth three times more quickly than before, or they were so muchforwarder in their other work, that they were enabled to sow it at thecritical moment, or so as _to save the season_, and thus secure a fullcrop, or a larger crop on a less number of acres, than was before raisedupon a greater. The copyholders, therefore, were the persons whoincreased the produce of the earth; but the exact account kept at thestore prevented the produce from being misapplied as formerly. It couldno longer be put down in the general expression of "given in allowancesto the Negroes and the stock;" but it was put down to the copyholder, and to him only, who received it. Thus Mr. Steele saved the purchase ofa great part of the provisions for his slaves. He had formerly a greatdeal to buy for them, but now nothing. On the other hand, he had tosell; but, as his slaves were made, according to the new system, to_maintain themselves_, he had now _the whole produce of his estate to__dispose of_. The circumstance therefore of having nothing to buy, butevery thing to sell, constituted another source of his profits. 

What the other particular profits of Mr. Steele were I can no wherefind, neither can I find what were his particular expenses; so as to beenabled to strike the balance in his favour. Happily, however, Mr. Steele has done this for us himself, though he has not furnished us withthe items on either side. --He says that "from the year 1773 to 1779 (hearrived in Barbadoes in 1780), his stock had been so much reduced by illmanagement and wasteful economy, that the annual average neat clearancewas little more than _one and a quarter_ per cent. On the purchase. In asecond period of four years, in consequence of the exertion of an honestand able manager, (though with a further reduction of the stock, andincluding the loss from the great hurricane, ) the annual average incomewas brought to clear _a little above two_ per cent. ; but in a thirdperiod of three years from 1784 to 1786 inclusive, _since the new modeof governing the Negroes_, (besides increasing the stock, and laying outlarge sums annually in adding necessary works, and in repairs of thedamages by the great hurricane, ) the estate has cleared very nearly_four and a quarter_ per cent. ; that is, its annual average clearance ineach of these three periods, was in this proportion; for every 100 l. Annually cleared in the first period the annual average clearance in thesecond period was 158 l. 10s. , and in the third period was 345 l. 6s. 8d. " This is the statement given by Mr. Steele, and a mostimportant one it is; for if we compare what the estate had cleared inthe first, with what it had cleared in the last of these periods, andhave recourse to figures, we shall find that Mr. Steele had _more thantripled_ the income of it, in consequence of _his new management_, during his residence in Barbadoes. And this is in fact what he sayshimself in words at full length, in his answer to the 17th questionproposed to him by the committee of the Privy-council on the affairs ofthe slave trade. "In a plantation, " says he, "of 200 slaves in June1780, consisting of 90 men, 82 women, 56 boys, and 60 girls, thoughunder the exertions of an able and honest manager, there were only 15births, and no less than 57 deaths, in three years and three months. Analteration was made in the mode of governing the slaves. The whips weretaken from all the white servants. All arbitrary punishments wereabolished, and all offences were tried and sentence passed by a Negrocourt. In four years and three months after this change of government, there were 44 births, and only 41 deaths, of which ten deaths were ofsuperannuated men and women, some above 80 years old. But in the sameinterval the annual neat clearance of the estate was _above three timesmore than it had been for ten years before!!!_"

Dr. Dickson, the editor of Mr. Steele, mentions these profits also, andin the same terms, and connects them with an eulogium on Mr. Steele, which is worthy of our attention. "Mr. Steele, " says he, "saw that theNegroes, like all other human beings, were to be stimulated to permanentexertion only by a sense of their own interests in providing for theirown wants and those of their offspring. He therefore tried _rewards_, which immediately roused the most indolent to exertion. His experimentsended in _regular wages_, which the industry he had excited among hiswhole gang enabled him to pay. Here was a natural, efficient, andprofitable reciprocity of interests. His people became contented; hismind was freed from that perpetual vexation and that load of anxiety, which are inseparable from the vulgar system, and in little more thanfour years the annual neat clearance of his property _was more thantripled_. " Again, in another part of the work, "Mr. Steele's plan may nodoubt receive some improvements, which his great age obliged him todecline"--"but it is perfect, as far as it goes. _To advance above 300field-negroes, who had never before moved without the whip, to a statenearly resembling that of contented, honest and industrious servants, and, after paying for their labour, to triple in a few years the annualneat clearance of the estate_, --these, I say, were great achievementsfor an aged man in an untried field of improvement, pre-occupied byinveterate vulgar prejudice. He has indeed accomplished all that wasreally doubtful or difficult in the undertaking, and perhaps all that isat present desirable either for owner or slave; for he has ascertainedas a fact, what was before only known to the learned as a theory, and topractical men as a paradox, that _the paying of slaves for their labourdoes actually produce a very great profit to their owners_. "

I have now proved (_as far as the plan[15] of Mr. Steele is concerned_)my third proposition, or _the probability that emancipation wouldpromote the interests of those who should adopt it_; but as I know of noother estate similarly circumstanced with that of Mr. Steele, that is, where emancipation has been tried, and where a detailed result of it hasbeen made known, I cannot confirm it by other similar examples. I musthave recourse therefore to some new species of proof. Now it is an oldmaxim, as old as the days of Pliny and Columella, and confirmed by Dr. Adam Smith, and all the modern writers on political economy, that _thelabour of free men is cheaper than the labour of slaves_. If therefore Ishould be able to show that this maxim would be true, if applied to allthe operations and demands of West Indian agriculture, I should be ableto establish my proposition on a new ground: for it requires no greatacuteness to infer, that, if it be cheaper to employ free men thanslaves in the cultivation of our islands, emancipation would be aprofitable undertaking there. 

I shall show, then, that the old maxim just mentioned is true, whenapplied to the case in our own islands, first, by establishing the fact, that _free men_, people of colour, in the East Indies, are employed in_precisely the same concerns_ (the cultivation of the cane and themaking of sugar) as the slaves in the West, and that they are employed_at a cheaper rate_. The testimony of Henry Botham, Esq. Will be quitesufficient for this point. That gentleman resided for some time in theEast Indies, where he became acquainted with the business of a sugarestate. In the year 1770 he quitted the East for the West. His objectwas to settle in the latter part of the world, if it should be founddesirable so to do. For this purpose he visited all the West Indianislands, both English and French, in about two years. He became duringthis time a planter, though he did not continue long in this situation;and he superintended also Messrs. Bosanquets' and J. Fatio'ssugar-plantation in their partners' absence. Finding at length theunprofitable way in which the West Indian planters conducted theirconcerns, he returned to the East Indies in 1776, and establishedsugar-works at Bencoolen on his own account. Being in London in the year1789, when a committee of privy council was sitting to examine into thequestion of the slave trade, he delivered a paper to the board on themode of cultivating a sugar plantation in the East Indies; and thispaper being thought of great importance, he was summoned afterwards in1791 by a committee of the House of Commons to be examined personallyupon it. 

It is very remarkable that the very first sentence in this paperannounced the fact at once, that "sugar, better and _cheaper_ than thatin the West Indian islands, was produced _by free men_. "

Mr. Botham then explained the simple process of making sugar in theEast. "A proprietor, generally a Dutchman, used to let his estate, say300 acres or more, with proper buildings upon it, to a Chinese, wholived upon it and superintended it, and who re-let it to free men inparcels of 50 or 60 acres on condition that they should plant it incanes for so much for every pecul, 133 lbs. , of sugar produced. Thissuperintendant hired people from the adjacent villages to take off hiscrop. One lot of task-men with their carts and buffaloes cut the canes, carried them to the mill, and ground them. A second set boiled them, anda third clayed and basketed them for market at so much per pecul. Thusthe renter knew with certainty what every pecul would cost him, and heincurred no unnecessary expense; for, when the crop was over, thetask-men returned home. By dividing the labour in this manner, it wasbetter and cheaper done. "

Mr. Botham detailed next the improved method of making sugar in Batavia, which we have not room to insert here. We may just state, however, thatthe persons concerned in it never made spirits on the sugar estates. Themolasses and skimmings were sent for, sale to Batavia, where onedistillery might buy the produce of a hundred estates. Here, again, wasa vast saving, says Mr. Botham, "there was not, as in the West Indies, a_distillery_ for _each estate_. "

He then proceeded to make a comparison between the agricultural systemof the two countries. "The cane was cultivated _to the utmostperfection_ in Batavia, whereas the culture of it in the West Indies wasbut _in its infancy. The hoe was scarcely used_ in the East, whereas itwas almost _the sole implement_ in the West. The _plough was usedinstead of it in the East_, as far as it could be done. Young canesthere were kept also often ploughed as a weeding, and the hoe was keptto weed round the plant when very young; but of this there was littleneed, if the land had been sufficiently ploughed. When the cane wasready to be earthed up, it was done by a _sort of shovel_ made for thepurpose. _Two persons_ with this instrument would earth up more canes ina day than _ten Negroes_ with hoes. The cane-roots were also _ploughedup_ in the East, whereas they were _dug up with the severest exertion_in the West. Many alterations, " says Mr. Botham, "are to be made, andexpenses and human labour lessened in the West. _Having experienced thedifference of labourers for profit and labourers from force_, I canassert, that _the savings by the former are very considerable_. "

He then pointed out other defects in the West Indian management, andtheir remedies. "I am of opinion, " says he, "that the West Indianplanter should for his own interest give more labour to beast and lessto man. A larger portion of his estate ought to be in pasture. Whenpracticable, canes should be carried to the mill, and cane tops andgrass to the stock, in waggons. The custom of making a hard-worked Negroget a bundle of grass twice a day should be abolished, and in short a_total change take place in the miserable management in our West IndianIslands_. By these means following as near as possible the East Indianmode, and consolidating the distilleries, I do suppose our sugar-islandsmight be better worked than they now are by _two-thirds_ or indeed_one-half_ of the present force. Let it be considered how much labour islost by the persons _overseeing the forced labourer_, which is savedwhen he works _for his own profit_. I have stated with the strictestveracity a plain matter of fact, that sugar estates can _be workedcheaper by free men than by slaves_[16]. "

I shall now show, that the old maxim, which has been mentioned, is true, when applied to the case of our West Indian islands, by establishing afact of a very different kind, viz. That the slaves in the West Indiesdo much more work in a given time when _they work for themselves_, thanwhen _they work for their masters_. But how, it will be said, do youprove, by establishing this fact, that it would be cheaper for ourplanters to employ free men than slaves? I answer thus: I maintain that, _while the slaves are working for themselves_, they are to beconsidered, indeed that they are, _bonâ fide, free labourers_. In thefirst place, they never have a driver with them on any of theseoccasions; and, in the second place, _having all their earnings tothemselves_, they have that stimulus within them to excite industry, which is only known _to free men_. What is it, I ask, which gives birthto industry in any part of the world, seeing that labour is notagreeable to man, but the stimulus arising from the hope of gain? Whatmakes an English labourer do more work in the day than a slave, but thestimulus arising from the knowledge, that what he earns is _for himselfand not for another_? What, again, makes an English labourer do muchmore work _by the piece_ than by _the day_, but the stimulus arisingfrom the knowledge that he may gain more by the former than by thelatter mode of work? Just so is the West Indian slave situated, when _heis working for himself_, that is, when he knows _that what he earns isfor his own use_. He has then all the stimulus of a free man, and he is, therefore, _during such work_ (though unhappily no longer) really, andin effect, and to all intents and purposes, as much _a free labourer_ asany person in any part of the globe. But if he be a free man, while heis working for himself, and if in that capacity he does twice or thricemore work than when he works for his master, it follows, that it wouldbe cheaper for his master to employ him as a free labourer, or that thelabour of free men in the West Indies would be cheaper than the labourof slaves. 

That West Indian slaves, when they work for themselves, do much more ina given time than when they work for their masters, is a fact sonotorious in the West Indies, that no one who has been there would denyit. Look at Long's History of Jamaica, The Privy Council Report, Gaisford's Essay on the good Effects of the Abolition of the SlaveTrade, and other books. Let us hear also what Dr. Dickson, the editorof Mr. Steele, and who resided so many years in Barbadoes, says on thissubject, for what he says is so admirably expressed that I cannot helpquoting it. "The planters, " says he, "do not take the right way to makehuman beings put forth their strength. They apply main force where theyshould apply moral motives, and punishments alone where rewards shouldbe judiciously intermixed. They first beslave their poor people withtheir cursed whip, and then stand and wonder at the tremour of theirnerves, and the laxity of their muscles. And yet, strange to tell, _those very men affirm, and affirm truly_, that a slave will do morework for himself _in an afternoon_ than he can be made to do for hisowner _in a whole day or more_!" And did not the whole Assembly ofGrenada, as we collect from the famous speech of Mr. Pitt on the SlaveTrade in 1791, affirm the same thing? "He (Mr. Pitt) would show, " hesaid, "the futility of the argument of his honourable friend. He (hishonourable friend) had himself admitted, that it was in the power of thecolonies to correct the various abuses by which the Negro population wasrestrained. But they could not do this without _improving the conditionof their slaves_, without making them _approximate towards the rank ofcitizens_, without giving them _some little interest in their labour_, which would occasion them to work _with the energy of men_. But now theAssembly of Grenada had themselves stated, that, _though_ the _Negroeswere allowed the afternoon of only one day in every week, they would doas much work in that afternoon when employed for their own benefit, asin the whole day when employed in their masters' service_. Now afterthis confession the House might burn all his calculations relative tothe Negro population; for if this population had not quite reached thedesirable state which he had pointed out, this confession had provedthat further supplies were not wanted. A Negro, _if he worked forhimself, could do double work_. By an improvement then in the mode oflabour, the work in the islands could be doubled. But if so, what wouldbecome of the argument of his honourable friend? for then only half thenumber of the present labourers were necessary. "

But the fact, that the slaves in the West Indies do much more work forthemselves in a given time than when they work for their masters, may beestablished almost arithmetically, if we will take the trouble ofcalculating from authentic documents which present themselves on thesubject. It is surprising, when we look into the evidence examined bythe House of Commons on the subject of the Slave Trade, to find howlittle a West Indian slave really does, when he works for his master;and this is confessed equally by the witnesses on both sides of thequestion. One of them (Mr. Francklyn) says, that a labouring man couldnot get his bread in Europe if he worked no harder than a Negro. Another (Mr. Tobin), that no Negro works like a day-labourer inEngland. Another (Sir John Dalling), that the general work of Negroes isnot to be called labour. A fourth (Dr. Jackson), that an Englishlabourer does three times as much work as a Negro in the West Indies. Now how are these expressions to be reconciled with the common notionsin England of Negro labour? for "to work like a Negro" is a commonphrase, which is understood to convey the meaning, that the labour ofthe Negroes is the most severe and intolerable that is known. One of thewitnesses, however, just mentioned explains the matter. "The hardship, "says he, "of Negro field-labour is more in the _mode_ than in the_quantity_ done. The slave, seeing no end of his labour, stands over thework, and only throws the hoe to avoid the lash. He appears to workwithout actually working. " The truth is, that a Negro, having nointerest in his work while working for his master, will work only whilethe whip is upon him. I can no where make out the clear net annualearnings of a field Negro on a sugar plantation to come up to 8 l. Sterling. Now what does he earn in the course of a year when he isworking for himself? I dare not repeat what some of the witnesses forthe planters stated to the House of Commons, when representing theenviable condition of the slaves in the West Indies; for this would beto make him earn more for himself _in one day_ than for his master _in aweek_. Let us take then the lowest sum mentioned in the Book ofEvidence. This is stated to be 14d. Sterling per week; and 14d. Sterling per week would make 3 l. Sterling per year. But how many daysin the week does he work when he makes such annual earnings? The mosttime, which any of the witnesses gives to a field slave for his ownprivate concerns, is every Sunday, and also every Saturday afternoon inthe week, besides three holidays in the year. But this is far from beingthe general account. Many of them say that he has only Sunday tohimself; and others, that even Sunday is occasionally trespassed upon byhis master. It appears, also, that even where the afternoon is givenhim, it is only out of crop-time. Now let us take into the account thetime lost by slaves in going backwards and forwards to theirprovision-grounds; for though some of these are described as being onlya stone's throw from their huts, others are described as being one, and two, and three, and even four miles off; and let us take into theaccount also, that Sunday is, by the confession of all, the Negro marketday, on which alone they can dispose of their own produce, and that themarket itself may be from one to ten or fifteen miles from their homes, and that they who go there cannot be working in their gardens at thesame time, and we shall find that there cannot be on an average morethan a clear three quarters of a day in the week, which they can calltheir own, and in which they can work for themselves. But call it awhole day, if you please, and you will find that the slave does forhimself in this one day more than a third of what he does for his masterin six, or that he works _more than three times harder_ when _he worksfor himself_ than when _he works for his master_. 

I have now shown, first by the evidence of Mr. Botham, and secondly bythe fact of Negroes earning more in a given time when they work in theirown gardens, than when they work in their master's service, that the oldmaxim "of _its being cheaper to employ free men than slaves_, " is true, when applied to the _operations and demands of West Indian agriculture_. But if it be cheaper to employ free men than slaves in the West Indies, then they, who should emancipate their Negroes there, would _promotetheir interest by so doing_. "But hold!" says an objector, "we allowthat their successors would be benefited, but not the _emancipatorsthemselves_. These would have a great sacrifice to make. Their slavesare worth so much money at this moment; but they would lose all thisvalue, if they were to set them free. " I reply, and indeed I have allalong affirmed, that it is not proposed to emancipate the slaves _atonce_, but to prepare them for emancipation _in a course of years_. Mr. Steele did not make his slaves _entirely free_. They were _copyhold-bondslaves_. They were still _his freehold property_: and they would, if hehad lived, have continued so for many years. They therefore, who shouldemancipate, would lose nothing of the value of their slaves, so long asthey brought them only to the door of liberty, but did not allow them topass through it. But suppose they were to allow them to pass through itand thus admit them to freedom, they would lose nothing by so doing; forthey would not admit them to freedom till _after a certain period ofyears, during which_ I contend that the _value of every individualslave_ would have been _reimbursed_ to them from _the increased incomeof their estates_. Mr. Steele, as we have seen, _more than tripled_ thevalue of his income during his experiment: I believe that he more thanquadrupled it; for he says, that he more than tripled it _besidesincreasing his stock_, and _laying out large sums annually in addingnecessary works_, and _in repairs of the damage by the great hurricane_. Suppose then a West India estate to yield at this moment a nett incomeof 500 l. Per annum, this income would be increased, according to Mr. Steele's experience, to somewhere about 1700 l. Per annum. Would not, then, the surplus beyond the original 500 l. , viz. 1200 l. Per annum, be sufficient to reimburse the proprietor in a few years for the valueof every slave which he had when he began his plan of emancipation? Buthe would be reimbursed again, that is, (twice over on the whole forevery individual slave, ) from a new source, viz. _the improved value ofhis land_. It is a fact well known in the United States, that a certainquantity of land, or farm, in full cultivation by free men, will fetchtwice more money than the same quantity of land, similarlycircumstanced, in full cultivation by slaves. Let us suppose now thatthe slaves at present on any West Indian plantation are worth about asmuch as the land with the buildings upon it, to which they are attached, and that the land with the buildings upon it would rise to double itsformer value when cultivated by free men, it follows that the land andbuildings alone would be worth as much then, that is, when worked byfree labourers, as the land, buildings, and slaves together are worth atthe present time. 

I have now, I think, pretty well canvassed the subject, and I shalltherefore hasten to a conclusion. And first, I ask the West Indians, whether they think that they will be allowed to carry on their presentcruel system, the arbitrary use of the whip and the chain, and thebrutal debasement of their fellow-creatures, _for ever_. I say, No; Ientertain better hopes of the humanity and justice of the Britishpeople. I am sure that they will interfere, and that when they _oncetake up the cause_, they _will never abandon it till they have obtainedtheir object_. And what is it, after all, that I have been proposing inthe course of the preceding pages? two things only, viz. That the lawsrelating to the slaves may be revised by the British parliament, so thatthey, may be made (as it was always intended) _to accord with, and notto be repugnant to_, the principles of the British constitution, andthat, when such a revision shall have taken place, the slaves may be putinto _a state of preparation for emancipation_; and for such anemancipation only as may be compatible with the joint interests of themaster and the slave. Is there any thing unreasonable in thisproposition? Is it unreasonable to desire that those laws should berepealed, which are contrary to the laws of God, or that the Africansand their descendants, who have the shape, image, intellect, feelings, and affections of men, should be treated as human beings?

The measure then, which I have been proposing, is _not unreasonable_. Itrust it _would not be injurious_ to the interests of the West Indiansthemselves. These are at present, it is said, in great distress; and sothey have been for years; and so they will still be (and moreover theywill be getting worse and worse) _so long as they continue slavery_. Howcan such a wicked, such an ill-framed system succeed? Has not theAlmighty in his moral government of the world stamped a character uponhuman actions, and given such a turn to their operations, that thebalance should be ultimately in favour of virtue? Has he not taken fromthose, who act wickedly, the power of discerning the right path? or hashe not so confounded their faculties, that they are for ever frustratingtheir own schemes? It is only to know the practice of our planters to beassured, that it will bring on difficulty after difficulty, and lossafter loss, till it will end in ruin. If a man were to sit down and totry to invent a ruinous system of agriculture, could he devise one moreto his mind than that which they have been in the habit of using? Let uslook at some of the more striking parts of this system. The first thatstares us in the face, is the unnatural and destructive practice of_forced labour_. Here we see men working without any rational stimulusto elicit their exertions, and therefore they must be followed bydrivers with whips in their hands. Well might it be said by Mr. Bothamto the Committees of Privy-council and House of Commons, "Let it beconsidered, how much labour is lost by the persons overseeing the forcedlabourer, which is saved when he works for his own profit;" and, notwithstanding all the vigilance and whipping of these drivers, I haveproved that the slaves do more for themselves in an afternoon, than in awhole day when they work for their masters. It was doubtless theconviction that _forced labour was unprofitable_, as well as that therewould be less of human suffering, which made Mr. Steele take away thewhips from his drivers, as _the very first step necessary_ in hisimproved system, or as the _sine quâ non_ without which such a systemcould not properly be begun; and did not this very measure _alter theface of his affairs in point of profit in three years after it had beenput into operation_? And here it must be observed, that, if everemancipation should be begun by our planters, this must be (however theymay dislike to part with arbitrary power) as much a first step with themas it was with Mr. Steele. _Forced labour_ stands at the head of thecatalogue of those nuisances belonging to slavery, which oppose theplanter's gain. It must be removed before any thing else can be done. See what mischiefs it leads to, independently of its want of profit. Itis impossible that forced labour can be kept up from day to day withoutinjury to the constitution of the slaves; and if their health isinjured, the property of their masters must be injured also. Forcedlabour, again, sends many of them to the sick-houses. Here is, at anyrate, a loss of their working time. But it drives them also occasionallyto run away, and sometimes to destroy themselves. Here again is a lossof their working time and of property into the bargain. _Forced labour_, then, is one of those striking parts in the West Indian husbandry, inwhich we see a _constant source of loss_ to those who adopt it; and maywe not speak, and yet with truth, as unfavourably of some of the otherstriking parts in the same system? What shall we say, first, to thatinjurious disproportion of the articles of croppage with the wants ofthe estates, which makes little or no provision of food for thelabourers (_the very first to be cared for_), but leaves these to be fedby articles to be bought three thousand miles off in another country, let the markets there be ever so high, or the prices ever sounfavourable, at the time? What shall we say, again, to that obstinateand ruinous attachment to old customs, in consequence of which evenacknowledged improvements are almost forbidden to be received? Howgenerally has the introduction of the plough been opposed in the WestIndies, though both the historians of Jamaica have recommended the useof it, and though it has been proved that _one plough_ with _two sets ofhorses_ to relieve each other, would turn up as much land _in a day, asone hundred Negroes_ could with their hoes! Is not the hoe alsocontinued in earthing up the canes there, when Mr. Botham proved, morethan thirty years ago, that _two_ men would do more with the East Indianshovel at that sort of work in a day, than _ten_ Negroes with the formerinstrument? So much for _unprofitable instruments_ of husbandry; a fewwords now on _unprofitable modes of employment_. It seems, first, littleless than infatuation, to make Negroes carry baskets of dung upon theirheads, basket after basket, to the field. I do not mention this so muchas an intolerable hardship upon those who have to perform it, as animprovident waste of strength and time. Why are not horses, or mules, oroxen, and carts or other vehicles of convenience, used oftener on suchoccasions? I may notice also that cruel and most disadvantageous mode ofemployment of making Negroes collect grass for the cattle, by picking itby the hand blade by blade. Are no artificial grasses to be found in ourislands, and is the existence of the scythe unknown there? But it is ofno use to dwell longer upon this subject. The whole system is a ruinousone from the beginning to the end. And from whence does such a systemarise? It has its origin in _slavery_ alone. It is practised no wherebut in the land of ignorance and slavery. Slavery indeed, or rather thedespotism which supports slavery, has no compassion, and it is one ofits characteristics _never to think of sparing the sinews of thewretched creature called a slave_. Hence it is slow to adopt helps, withwhich a beneficent Providence has furnished us, by giving to man aninventive faculty for easing his burthens, or by submitting the beastsof the field to his dominion and his use, and it flies to expedientswhich are contrary to nature and reason. How then can such a system everanswer? Were an English farmer to have recourse to such a system, hewould not be able to pay his rent for a single year. If the plantersthen are in distress, it is their own fault. They may, however, thankthe abolitionists that they are not worse off than they are at present. The abolition of the slave trade, by cutting off the purchase of newslaves, has cut off one cause of their ruin[17]; and it is only theabolition _of slavery which can yet save them_. Had the planters, whenthe slave trade was abolished, taken immediate measures to meet thechange; had they then revised their laws and substituted better; hadthey then put their slaves into a state of preparation for emancipation, in what a different, that is, desirable situation would they have beenat this moment! In fact, _nothing can save them, but the abolition ofslavery on a wise and prudent plan_. They can no more expect, withoutit, to meet the present low prices of colonial produce, than the Britishfarmer can meet the present low prices of grain, unless he can have anabatement of rent, tithe, and taxation, and unless his present poorrates can be diminished also. Take away, however, from the planters theuse and practice of slavery, and the hour of _their regeneration_ wouldbe begun. Can we doubt, that Providence would then bless theirendeavours, and that _salvation_ from their difficulties would be theirportion in the end?

It has appeared, I hope, by this time, that what I have been proposingis not unreasonable, and that, so far from being injurious to theinterests of the planters, it would be highly advantageous to them. Ishall now show, that I do not ask for the introduction of a more humanesystem into our Colonies _at a time when it would be improper to grantit_; or that no fair objection can be raised against the _presentmoment_, as _the fit era_ from whence the measures in contemplationshould commence. There was, indeed, a time when the planters might haveoffered something like an excuse for the severity of their conducttowards their slaves, on the plea that the greater part of them then inthe colonies were _African-born_ or _strangers_, and that cargoes wereconstantly pouring in, one after the other, consisting of the same sortof beings; or of _stubborn ferocious people, never accustomed to work, whose spirits it was necessary to break_, and _whose necks to force downto the yoke_; and that this could only be effected by the whip, thechain, the iron collar, and other instruments of the kind. But _now_ nosuch plea can be offered. It is now sixteen years since the slave tradewas abolished by England, and it is therefore to be presumed, that nonew slaves have been imported into the British colonies within thatperiod. The slaves, therefore, who are there at this day, must consisteither of Africans, whose spirits must have been long ago broken, or ofCreoles born in the cradle and brought up in the trammels of slavery. What argument then can be produced for the continuation of a barbarousdiscipline there? And we are very glad to find that two gentlemen, bothof whom we have had occasion to quote before, bear us out in thisremark. Mr. Steele, speaking of some of the old cruel laws of Barbadoes, applies them to the case before us in these words:--"As, according toLigon's account, there were not above two-thirds of the island inplantations in the year 1650, we must suppose that in the year 1688 thegreat number of _African-born_ slaves brought into the plantations inchains, and compelled to labour by the terrors of corporal punishment, might have made it appear necessary to enact a temporary law so harsh asthe statute No. 82; but when the _great majority_ of the Negroes werebecome _vernacular, born in the island, naturalized by language_, and_familiarised by custom_, did not _policy_ as well as humanity require:them _to be put under milder conditions_, such as were granted to theslaves of our Saxon ancestors?" Colonel Malenfant speaks the samesentiments. In defending his plan, which he offered to the FrenchGovernment for St. Domingo in 1814, against the vulgar prejudice, that"where you employ Negroes you must of necessity use slavery, " hedelivers himself thus:--"[18]If all the Negroes on a plantation had notbeen more than six months out of Africa, or if they had the same ideasconcerning an independent manner of life as the Indians or the savagesof Guiana, I should consider my plan to be impracticable. I should thensay that coercion would be necessary: but ninety-nine out of everyhundred Negroes in St. Domingo are aware that they cannot obtainnecessaries without work. They know that it is their duty to work, andthey are even desirous of working; but the remembrance of their cruelsufferings in the time of slavery renders them suspicious. " We mayconclude, then, that if a cruel discipline was _not necessary_ in theyears 1790 and 1794, to which these gentlemen allude, when there musthave been _some thousands of newly imported Africans_ both in St. Domingo and in the English colonies, it cannot be necessary _now_, whenthere have been no importations into the latter for _fifteen years_. There can be no excuse, then, for the English planters for not alteringtheir system, and this _immediately_. It is, on the other hand, a greatreproach to them, considering the quality and character of their slaves, _that they should not of themselves have come forward on the subjectbefore this time_. 

Seeing then that nothing has been done where it ought, it is the duty ofthe abolitionists to _resume their labours_. If through the medium ofthe abolition of the slave trade they have not accomplished, as theyexpected, the whole of their object, they have no alternative but toresort to _other measures_, or to attempt by constitutional means, underthat Legislature which has already sanctioned their efforts, themitigation of the cruel treatment of the Negroes, with the ultimate viewof extinguishing, in due time and in a suitable manner, the slaveryitself. Nor ought any time to be lost in making such an attempt; for itis a melancholy fact, that there is scarcely any increase of the slavepopulation in our islands at the present moment. What other proof needwe require _of the severity of the slavery there, and of the necessityof its mitigation?_ Severe punishments, want of sufficient food, labourextracted by the whip, and a system of prostitution, conspire, _almostas much as ever_, to make inroads upon the constitutions of the slaves, and to prevent their increase. And let it be remembered here, that anyformer defect of this kind was supplied by importations; but thatimportations are _now unlawful_. Unless, therefore, the abolitionistsinterfere, and that soon, our West Indian planters may come toParliament and say, "We have now tried your experiment. It has notanswered. You must therefore give us leave to go again to the coast ofAfrica for slaves. " There is also another consideration worthy of theattention of the abolitionists, viz. That _a public attempt_ made inEngland to procure the abolition of _slavery_ would very much promotetheir original object, the cause of the abolition of the slave trade;for foreign courts have greatly doubted our sincerity as to the lattermeasure, and have therefore been very backward in giving us theirassistance in it. If England, say they, abolished the slave trade _frommoral motives_, how happens it _that she continues slavery_? But if this_public attempt_ were to succeed, then the abolitionists would see theirwishes in a direct train for completion: for if slavery were to fall inthe British islands, this event would occasion death in a given time, and without striking any further blow, to the execrable trade in everypart of the world; because those foreigners, who should continueslavery, no longer able to compete in the markets with those who shouldemploy free men, must abandon the slave trade altogether. 

But here perhaps the planters will say, "What right have the people ofEngland to interfere with our property, which would be the case if theywere to attempt to abolish slavery?" The people of England might reply, that they have as good a right as you, the planters, have to interferewith that most precious of all property, _the liberty of your slaves_, seeing that _you hold them by no right that is not opposed to nature, reason, justice, and religion_. The people of England have no desire tointerfere with your _property_, but with your _oppression_. It isprobable that your property would be improved by the change. But, toexamine this right more minutely, I contend, first, that they havealways a right to interfere in behalf of humanity and justice wherevertheir appeals can be heard. I contend, secondly, that they have a moreimmediate right to interfere in the present case, because the oppressedpersons in question, living in the British dominions and under theBritish Government, are _their fellow subjects_. I contend again, thatthey have this right upon the ground that they are giving you, the WestIndians, _a monopoly_ for their sugar, by buying it from you exclusively_at a much dearer rate_ than _they can get it from other quarters_. Surely they have a right to say to you, as customers for your produce, Change your system and we will continue to deal with you; but if youwill not change it, we will buy our sugar elsewhere, or we will not buysugar at all. The East Indian market is open to us, and we prefer sugarthat is not stained with blood. Nay, we will petition Parliament to takeoff the surplus duty with which East Indian sugar is loaded on youraccount. What superior claims have you either upon Parliament or uponus, that you should have the preference? As to the East Indians, theyare as much the subjects of the British empire as yourselves. As to theEast India Company, they support all their establishments, both civiland military, at their own expense. They come to our Treasury fornothing; while you, with naval stations, and an extraordinary militaryforce kept up for no other purpose than to keep in awe an injuredpopulation, and with heavy bounties on the exportation of your sugar, put us to such an expense as makes us doubt whether your trade is worthhaving on its present terms. They, the East India Company, again, havebeen a blessing to the Natives with whom they have been concerned. Theydistribute an equal system of law and justice to all without respect ofpersons. They dispell the clouds of ignorance, superstition, andidolatry, and carry with them civilization and liberty wherever they go. You, on the other hand, have no code of justice but for yourselves. You_deny it_ to those who _cannot help themselves_. You _hinder liberty_ byyour cruel restrictions on manumission; and dreading the inlet of light, _you study to perpetuate ignorance and barbarism_. Which then of the twocompetitors has the claim to preference by an English Parliament and anEnglish people? It may probably soon become a question with the latter, whether they will consent to pay a million annually more for West Indiasugar than for other of like quality, or, which is the same thing, whether they will allow themselves to be _taxed annually to the amountof a million sterling to support West Indian slavery_. 

I shall now conclude by saying, that I leave it; and that I recommendit, to others to add to the light which I have endeavoured to furnish onthis subject, by collecting new facts relative to Emancipation and theresult of it in other parts of the world, as well as relative to thesuperiority of free over servile labour, in order that the West Indiansmay be convinced, if possible, that they would be benefited by thechange of system which I propose. They must already know, both by pastand present experience, that the ways of unrighteousness are notprofitable. Let them not doubt, when the Almighty has decreed thebalance in favour of virtuous actions, that their efforts under the newsystem will work together for their good, so that their temporalredemption may be at hand. 

THE END. 

Printed by Richard Taylor, Shoe-Lane, London. 

Footnotes:

[1] See Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 18. 

[2] See Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 339. 

[3] Mitigation of Slavery, p. 50. 

[4] See Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 102. 

[5] A part of the black regiments were bought in Africa as recruits, andwere not transported in slave-ships, and, never under West Indiamasters: but it was only a small part compared with the whole number inthe three cases. 

[6] Mémoire historique et politique des Colonies, et particulièrement decelle de St. Domingue, &c. Paris, August 1814. 8vo. P. 58. 

[7] Pp. 125, 126. 

[8] There were occasionally marauding parties from the mountains, whopillaged in the plains; but these were the old insurgent, and not theemancipated Negroes. 

[9] P. 78. 

[10] Mémoires, p. 311. 

[11] Ibid. P. 324. 

[12] The French were not the authors of tearing to pieces the Negroesalive by bloodhounds, or of suffocating them by hundreds at a time inthe holds of ships, or of drowning them (whole cargoes) by scuttling andsinking the vessels;--but the _planters_. 

[13] All the slave-population was to be emancipated in 18 years; andthis consisted at the time of passing the decree of from 250, 000 to300, 000 souls. 

[14] See Dr. Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, London 1814, from whenceevery thing relating to this subject is taken. Dr. Dickson had been formany years secretary to Governor Hay, in Barbadoes, where he had anopportunity of studying the Slave agriculture as a system. Being inLondon afterwards when the Slave Trade controversy was going on inParliament, he distinguished himself by silencing the different writerswho defended the West Indian slavery. There it was that Mr. Steeleaddressed himself to him by letter, and sent him those invaluablepapers, which the Doctor afterwards published under the modest title of"Mitigation of Slavery by Steele and Dickson. " No one was betterqualified than Dr. Dickson to become the Editor of Mr. Steele. 

[15] It is much to be feared that this beautiful order of things wasbroken up after Mr. Steele's death by his successors, either throughtheir own prejudices, or their unwillingness or inability to standagainst the scoffs and prejudices of others. It may be happy, however, for thousands now in slavery, that Mr. Steele lived to accomplish hisplan. The constituent parts and result of it being known, a fine exampleis shown to those who may be desirous of trying emancipation. 

[16] Mr. Botham's account is confirmed incontrovertibly by the fact, that sugar made in the East Indies can be brought to England (though ithas three times the distance to come, and of course three times thefreight to pay), and yet be afforded to the consumer at as cheap a rateas any that can be brought thither from the West. 

[17] Dickson's Mitigation of Slavery, p. 213, where it is proved thatbought slaves never refund their purchase-money to their owners. 

[18] P. 125.