The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-10-27 00:00:00

,_

of the Coiony. I know no other *ay of discharging that duty
hers than by giving my honest opinion according to the dictates of
my conscience.

With this principle before me, I have. 44iven to the suggfatioot
contained in hoed Bathurses last despatch all the consideraion
which the subject demands, as far as my abili,ies allowed it ; a 4
I have fully reconsidered every thing that has hitherto been done
by this Court in thi, matter ; and after closely examining the prin.
ciple on which the former Resolutions of the Coen have beet
framed, I must own that I have not been able to arrive at the coo.
elusion on which his Honour new grounds the total change of Ifs
former opinion, viz. that the proposition relating, to eompulsorl
ononumission was mow very inetterially changq, by the admission
of two principles, the fall extent of which mightl,itherto /mare been
ithought

Let us see upon what principle the Court has hitherto rejected
the manumission clause, and afterwards examine the two princi-
ples which, in his Honour's opinion, have so materially Mengel
the case as to set at rest the scruple, formerly hell hy the Court.
I beg the Court to tam to the nom added to she 30th section of
the Slave Code, and it will there be seen that the Court has cx.
plicitly given as its reasons fm not adopting this compulsory menu.
mission clause—Mat it fell it to be beyond its puwer without Me
'breach of a sacred trust, which binds its members to protect the
rights and hatreds of their plow Colonists, to give their am-
,tion to nay measure which could, even by coostructioie, loge' an
aeknowkdged right on Me part of the slave to demand his free.
done IN vt TO DO msgo ; that they fell themselves ratted spite Openly
to avow this principle, that they have Mt the right to twohde th.•
property' of Mel" fellow Colonists by odoillting Mat the, eon its
any manlier lee deprivrd of if Nigro," to Me law by which it is
secured to them, and wlikle his Mafisty has graciumsly been pleased
to guarantee by Me articles o f capitulation on whieh this COlossy
ssrrendcred to his Ahdesty's arms.
Title is the language held by the Coon on the second March,
.1825, and on the same thy the Calomel Membees in a want* ad.
dress repressed their humble hops that the reasons Aires for.rea
rowiog the provisions ON the ridged of maneernission, being of la
I raly conscientious nature, would receive his Majesty's geraciaa;
coosideration. Nothing I am sure can be more intelligible than
this plain language. It clearly lays down the principle that site
Court cannot without a violation of duty' adopt measures itestme_
tire of the rights of property, as secured by law; sad ft is on ibis
principle that the manumwairm clause has been rejected bet the
Ceurt. When Lord Bedtimes despatch of the 100 of Jule,
11123, was laid before the Cuurt, it was foetid that his yeedetei,
again pressed the Court fur the adoption of the Manumiedon.
Clause, and he suggested certain cenditlons and provisions with
which he considered that the prineeple might safely he adopted.
What did the Court Vien do ? On the fide lieptetribm, Ifili, the
Court came to the following resolution :—Trost the Coors dies not
consider it respedful to his Majesty's Covernmeut le enter into
a discussion of the ohtervietions adduced he Ea-I Rittleorst4 dc.
spatch on this point ; it must, howtrer, with all deference. uharrte
.Mat it cannot feel that the pi incipks on which its original` ot-
jetliners ore fiet:nd,d, and the grottoes ow whirls it has pointed out
the enornmeis.misehirf which might remelt from Me meosore pro-
pus-d, hove beat io the slightest degree shaken by Male oberrvatimes,
and thee clove anxious as it renhy is to meet, is the !idlest extent,
the wishes of his Majesty's Goverment-tit, it cannot coosrientiously
proceed farther than it leas aiready dente on such entire coeleic.
lion, andi is therefore roost unwillingly cosepelled to decline tedopt-
beg the recomniesidations prepared.
This Reeolutioe, winch is entirely from the pen of Mr. Presi-
dent Wray, expresses in scam( terms the Court's entire convieme
that it could not conscientiously proceed further than it had already
done. It confirms, of course. the principle on which the C-curt had
before rejected the Compulsory Alanumiesion Clause, vin. its sacred
regard fur the rights of prow, re.
This being the high groued oe which the Court has hither o
, stood, the question now is, whether the limitations and raodifce.
lions proposal by Earl Bathurst in the despatch of 2.lth February,
10211, are ce such a nature, that by tacking them to the principle
of the Compulsory Manumission Chute, that principle can safely
be adopted be this Court without a dereliction of duty, and without
violating those rights, for the protection of which it late hitherto
stood up? If so, the apprehension cf inconsistency with former
resolutions need be no bar ae.tieet adopting the tleuse ; foe it' ti.e
danger which was appnhended is effeetuelle removed, farther re.
distance would become mere obetatiney. But, on another tutted, if
the guarantees propmed are unit aufilicnt for the security of tie
eights of prop ety, I am sure trat the one conecientienie motive
from which the Court bee hitherto rejected it must continue to
have the same effect now.
• The two grand principles whirls Mr. Prtsitlent Wrey states to, .
'have now bent fully admitted, had which, in his opiniefn, seem to '
remove all difficalum, are-
-Ist. That the principle of valuation now proposed was not
merely to put • value on the slave to be manumit ed, but, taking
the fullest and most comprehensive view of the effect caused by the
manumission, to make compensation to the owner foe any detesie.
roe ion caused thereby; or. in hoed Bathurst's words, 't• in mete a
fair estimate of the lose which the owner may sustain by the act of
' Manutnimion," ant this to be ascertained by such tribunal as the
Court might think desirable.
2d. That manumitsiotf should he the result and reward of ha-
bitual industry, and that it should cotter a right to purchase, his
freedom by the fruits of his honed earnings.
First, on Compensation. It a lair estimate coven be made Of
the loss which an owner may, in the fullest extent, sustain, as often
as he is deprived of pile or more of his effective slaves, there might
be little difficulty in the cese; but I hold it .o beaded, impossible,
in individual came, to fix with certainty a fair compensation. The
n elute of Al'est India property is so widely different from that of
all others, that reasoning by analogy must lead to the greatest
errors; it is necessary. therefore, to enter into some details. The
Court, in its observations of'the 2.1 • March, 1825, has calculated,
and, I believe, fairly, that the average number of able effective
people, upon an estate, is about one third of the whole gang; the
remaining two thirds being composed of infants who area burden
to the owner, and of the eget!. whom be must support. Let as
now suppose an estate with 150 elavee, cut of which 60 ore those by
whose labour the estate is cultivated. The quantity of land its
cultivation is necessarily calculated upon the number of labourers,
and the quantitrof produce made is of course in the same ratio.
Suppose that, in the first year, lie is forced to lose three or four
of' these effective slaves, which cannot be replaced by INIICTS; this
loss is immediately kit in a reduction of the quantity of produce
made; and suppose that, in the next year, lie is again deprivdd of
three or tour slaves, which, from the nature of things, mom than
doubles the lota of the first yeir ; and there being r,o limit to the
number of slaves who may claim their freedom, the number of work.
ing slaves may gradually be so reduced, tbit a great part orthe
cultivation being from necessity abandoned. the produce which tan
be raised will not be sufficient fur defraying the expellees of the
I state, when the'only resource left would be to break up the Mate
by selling the slaves; the lands and buildings being then no More
of any use to the owner, and of course a total loss to him, Now,
I would ask, how is it possible, at the thite of the first slaves ob-
taining their freedom, and at every subsequent manumission, to
make a fair estimate of the subsequent aid final lasses to be brought
en the owner in consequence of these periodical manumissions, and
by what scale can what Mr. Preeident Wray calls the fullest and
most comprehensive view cf the effects to be caused by these menu-
missions be calculated? And how is i• possible before-hand to tie
a sure compensation for all future deterioration, the ultimate molt
of which is finally to be the necessary abandonaieut of the estate,
and the total ruin of the owner?
I think it unnecessary at this time to say any thing about
free labour to be expewel from euenualued. elven. Major
Moody's second Report has put that question at rest, and experience
in Trinidad at this day eroves it to be altogether a deltisioe,
although the expectation of that free labour continues to be one of
the items which is to be brought in the wale of co:venation: I
call upon every one who hears me, whether they have met Immo
io this colony a manumitted slave or a free-ban black mm Wang
employed for wages in agricultural labour:
In the foregoing case I hare supposed that the estate was men.
cumbered with any mortgage; but tiow must this compulsory ma-
numission operate upon a mortgaged property ? Who must
become of the claims of the mortgagee, who has lent his money
upon the full reliaece that the law clot secure both hinted, and
the mortgagor fa the full effeets of the stipulations of the mortgage
emerect. The nurgageeholda a lien on the slaves es yentas every
letter Alit of the peapetty. Indeed, in the ease of a mortgage, the
slaves are in law real property. If eleven are at liberty al their
wil to separate themselves fromahe property, and to lerie their
master on the production or a certain sum of monoy. how me ! e
expect ever to redeem his debt, when de 'rived obe mums Cu
et err his industry ? It the money hi,. dey the slave melds (see-
der() goes into the hands of the mortgneee, it is an injustice to the
d.l ter because it is no part of his contract with the mortgagee:—
if it is given to the owner of the slave, it is still a greatermostice
t) the mortgagee; or if it should be deposited in some public chest,
i. is an injustice to both parties, and the end of the whole must be,
fiat the owner of the etde, who, by the decrease of his produce,
secs his debt constantly increasing, niuse became a ruined man, at
tve same time that the mortgagee is the loser of his money. I
must ale it—Has this Court the power to annul or alter contracts
lawfu it entered into between other parties? The answer must be,
Ni'. yet if eh! Court gives its sanctioe to the adoption of the Cote.
puleory manumission Clause, without securing- to the .parties
affected by it a foil compenratioa for their loss, it would become
accessary to an act of injustice, which certainly never can be the
intention of any one who hears me.
If Lam right in the view which I have taken of the matter (rd
such is mg conviction), that it is impossible to fix a just principle
of full compensation tor all the lessee. that. mote accrete from this
compulsory manumission, I am also warranted in feeling that if.c
adoption of it would be an i ivasion of the rights of property ; an-el
this being against the interest of the colony, I must conic to the
conclusion, that the faithful performance of my ditty, as a member
of this Court, forbids me to accede lo the preposition. 1 am aware
'l' that I may Incur the imputation of being over.ftetidious by those
MI ,'who formerly held the same opinion with me, but who now, seeing
dad mum to change it, recommend the adeption of the chum, not as a
el
rth of esaftruiewnePaste,hi:ll:oeaalyviralliditliscini:pargoteenvdeeczna,67lBr.oetaireeddtloshfrEigistwedaCadirs danger, but
Ui
cue t a 8
1, onee .
ban tame till ails, either to enact the manumission clam lon, ft t
i
cc ' alltkit,o4o6o 444414,.. .3.- •