The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-10-31 00:00:00

WEST INDIA SLAVERY.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE BRITISH PRF-614.
suo—The eyes of the British people have been long
weed with intense anxiety to the subject of West-
Indian Slavery, and are now looking for the result of the
reconunentlations of his Mejesty's Government to the
Colonies upon the measures proposed by them for the amen
liorstion and gradual extinction of slavery in the British
,dominions. The friends of the Negroes have been vehe-
mently charged with pressing the subject with unjust&
able zeal and precipitation, and have been assured both at
home and abroad that the Colonists themselves were not
only willing but desirous to reform their Slave Codes, and
only required a little time in order to procure a sufficiently
&geared view of the object to enable them to accomplish
it themselves. The delay which had already taken place,
when Lard Bathurst required of them a further considera-
tion of the proposed measures, gave but little hopes that
any thing effectual would be done or even attempted, and
die result leas fully justified, at least in the case of Deme-
rol% all the fears of those who even declared that it was
uselees to trust reform to the hands of those men who did
not hesitate to proclaim to the world that their prosperity,
and the abuses of their system, must stand or fall together.
In your Papet of the 27th ult. is a very long article, by
which we are informed that in Demerara the proposed ame-
lioration of the state of slavery has been rejected altoge-
ther and a Correspondent, who signs himself Q. thinks
that the arguments used by those members of the Court of
Policy who spoke against the measure are quite unanswer-
able. His first tirade is directed against Mr. President
Wray, for daring to propose to their adoption, though un-
der modifications which moat essentially diminish their
value, the recommendations sent out in rather a peremptory
manner by the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial De.
partitive. One of these modifications is, that the slave
having the means to purchase his freedom should, before
he was allowed to purchase it, first prove that he had ac-
quired the means by hie honest industry. Were ever such
principles of legislation heard of excepting in a slave colony,
dist a man should prove a negative to his possessions,
or that the pitiful accumulation of years of parsimonious
savings should be accounted for, item by item, before its
legal possessor was allowed to make use of it, for the spe-
cific purpose for which it had been—by perhaps the un-
wearied exertions of a life—obtained? What should we
think of a law, in this country, which obliged every man
to prove, to a public Court, that he obtained his money by
honest industry, before he was permitted to complete a pur-
chase? With us, indeed, it is thought sufficient to require
proof that property is stolen, and not that it is honestly ac-
quired, the latter being always assumed until proof of the
former is produced • and surely the Demerara planters
might be content to leave legislating upon principles which,
if applied to men-stet.krs, would leave but a small part of
the question between us and them to be determined. Nor
is such proof required from the slave in other cases : be
may buy ruin or other articles, the price of which returns
his money into the pocket of his master or his agent—but
when !Acre?. dear liberty, is to be the object of the pur-
chase. every shilling of the price must be proved to have
been honestly acquired! Yet even this proposal is indig-
nantly rejected ; and Mr. President Wray, for such contu-
macy, is presumed to have abandoned the interest of the co-
lonists in obedience to his official instructions, which, how-
ever, until I have seen, I never can believe,contain such prin.
ciplea of legislation as were proposed by him to the Court
of Policy to adopt. The apology put by Q. in the mouth
of the Members of the Court of Policy is, that by acceding
to the proposed improvements, they would violate the oath
taken upon their becoming Members of that body. I sup-
pose Q. was in the corner, without either fire or candle-
light, when he wrote this; because it necessarily implies
that their oath upon that occasion obliges them to break
their previous oath and duty of submission to the Govern-
ment of this country. This I leave to Q. to explain.
Another proposal made by the worthy President was,
that a slave, being a member of a family, should not be
permitted to purchase his freedom singly, but must also
at the same time purchase that of the other members of
the fern:ly. A proposal to which it certainly would have
been useless for the Court of Policy to have acceded, as a
(restriction, of this kind, which w mid in ninety-nine in-
stances out of a hundred have effectually prevented the Ne-
groes acquiring their freedom, never could have been i
allowed by his Nlejesty's Council. consistently with their
recorded views and intentions. Yet Mr. President Wray
did not go far enough for these gentle refortillsts, although
it is plainly to be perceived that the adoption of the restric-
tion recommended by him would, if allowed in this coun-
try, effectually have rendered abortive every other facility
given or pretended to be given to promote the manumission
of slaves.
The arguments used by the Court of Policy in justifica-
Cult of their conduct are summed up by Q. in three heads.
First—the allowing slaves to effect their own einaticips-
Lion must interfere with the mortgagee, and be a direct in-
fringement of the rights of private property. To this I
reply :--The mortgagee has the estate upon which he has
advanced his money, in pledge for the repayment of it, with
interest; and if he gets (what the manumission of the
sieves will produce to him) the amount of his pledge, in
what, in the name of wonder, is he injured? A question
too obtrudes itself here, namely—are the Colonists the
mortgagees or mortgagors of colonial property? Because,
if they are not the former, it were better to leave that ar-
gument to those who are.
But " emancipation must be a direct infringement of
the rights of titivate property." And so is every public
exercise of legislative power that affects property at all.
Witness the " private properly" interfered with in this
rowan- for various public purposes—for building a new
Pas: Office—a new London-bridge—a new Dock. It is
needless to instance more cases; but why should the slave-
owners alone be exempt from an infringement of w hat they
deem " the tights of private property, as in every public
appropriation of it a full equivalent is awarded to the
owner ? So in the case of the emancipation (with less ap-
pearance of justice) it is to irefully given ; and to say that
the value of a negro cannot be estimated, is to say that
the buyers and sellers of human flesh give and take sums
of ir eniy leap-hazard for their commodity, without being
able at all to judge whether they obtain any thing like an
equivalent or no. This is a sufficient answer to your core
respetelesit's second objection.
The third objection is of that most extraordinary class,
the reason of which cannot be perceives' by any hotly but
those oho, like the Counsel in the fable, are only able to
see through a case by the help of a pair of silver or golden
spectacles. The reason given is, that to allow to a slave
the right to purchase his freedom will make him " idle,
and debase his moral character." Why then give him his
freedom without obliging him to pay for it, which, as the
converse of the proposition, if it be correct, will make him
industrious, and elevate his moral character. This, however,
has been continually denied by the colonists, who, attempt-
ine to justify their tenacious adherence to their system of
Y.,),;g,ing and coercion, have perpetually asserted that the
slaves are already so idle, that the whip is indispensably ne-
cessary to make them work ; and that, as to " moral cha-
racter," they are brutes, and not men. One won& rs,
therefore, how the proposed measure could do the colonists
listen in this respect. But is there any foundation for
the oljection itself? Is it true that when the produce of
the savings of a mart's labour is to lead to the attainment
of the object which, of all others, he most desires, it will
be an hiducement to idleness and not to industry ? and that
he who is doomed to labour for life for another, with-
out hope of reward, will be more assiduous than lie
who labours fur his own benefit, under the influence
or the strongest inducement which can possibly be
placed before him ? 1 feel that I may safely leave the
conclusion to your readers without pressing an argument
further. which, if it eludes the grasp at all, does so from
its being an empty nothing. But, before I conclude, per-
mit nee us a frb nd to humanity, to present my hearty
thanks to the Coat of Policy of Demerara, and their
friends. I thank you, Gentlemen Legislators of the Island
of Demerara ; you arc active promoters of the cause of
your oppresses' and injured slaves ; you have now put the
whole subject in dispute upon a different footing. The
qneation is not now between Abolitionists and Slave
Owners, but between Great Britain and Demerara, whe-
ther a petty colony shall set the Parliament of the United
at defiance, and the Privy Council of his Ma-
jesty be bearded by the Members of a West-Indian Court
of Policy ?—I am, Mr. Editor, yourbbedient servant.
Oct. 25, 1026. X.