The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-04 00:00:00

of James Williams Wee either an anonymous statement, or a
by anonymous statements. Did he mean that the narrativ.".
slander ?—( Cheers. ) Did he mean to charge, under the same
head, the statements made by their excellent friend, Joseph
Sturge—of the most noble the Marquis of Sligo—the des-
patches of the Marquis of Sligo and Sir Lionel Smith—
( Cheers)—as well as their addresses to the House of Assem-
bly in Jamaica? Were all these ex parte statements—were
_
these slanders ? Probably the Hon. Gentleman might intend
That
so to designate the Bill of Lord Glenelg.—( Cheers.)
Bill was founded upon these despatches, yet the Hon. Gentle-
man he had in view voted, most inconsistently, for the second
reading of the Bill—of that Bill which showed the planters ofJa-
maica a class the most base and iniquitous of any. It had been
said that a compact had been entered into with the planters '3
1833. That had most satisfactorily been shown to be un-
true.—( Hear, hear.) But even if there had been a eall"
pact, it had been shown in the late debate by Sir Edward,
Sugden, that the planters had violated nearly every one of its
provisions. Their case had been completely made out before.
the late division in the House of Commons. Allusion had
been made by Mr. Gladstone to British Guiana. He said that
complaints had never been made of that Colony before the.
night previous to that on which he spoke. The friends and
relations of that Hon. Gentleman had in that Island iminetnw
property, and he appeared in that House not as a Legislatoe,
but as the mere advocate of the West India budyee-to state his
own case, and support it as he best might. But so far frail
the facts being as he stated, the Parliamentary Papers made
out as completely against Guiana as they did against Jamji"'
Mr. Gladstone had received an invitation to appear upon the
platform that day. It appeared he did not think it proper
to appear before a public meeting like the present,—( Cheers.)
He had stated Sir J. C. Smith to be a gentleman of unim-
peachable honour. He (Mr. S.) knew that he had governed
the Bahamas in a most creditable manner. He stood there to
investigate the public acts of Sir J. C. Smith, and to coal-.
ment upon them. When that Governor went to Britisfs
Guiana he found that he had a very powerful body to con-
ciliate before he could carry on the Government of the colony
He (Mr. S.) had to charge him with giving his sanction le
an order for the government of the apprenticed labourers.
which was essentially repugnant both to the letter and the
spirit of the Act of 1833. He had to charge him with
agreeing to a tariff of labour, which imposed upon the
labourers as much work as they had to perform while they
were slaves. He had to charge Sir J. C. Smith with having
appointed several planters to the situation of special magis-
trates, appointing them over districts in which were situated-
their own estates. He had to charge him with having issued
proclamations of a contradictory nature with respect to the
classification of apprentices, by which the non-przedials were
put into the prmdial class, by which the poor apprentice Was
robbed of two years' liberty. He had to charge him with neg-
lecting to provide proper accommodation for the magistrates,
by which they were compelled to live with, and accept hospi-
tality from the planter. He had to charge him with the exe-
cution of Damont, and the transportation of several other ap-
prentice labourers upon a charge of rebellion, notwithstanding
the protest of the puisne Judge of the Court, before which the
prisoners were tried. Sir J. C. Smith had supported the ar
prenticeship system—ho had termed it a "kind and humane WV'
This was the language of Sir J. C. smith in regard to a law
admitted to be bad in principle.—( Hear, hear.) It bad been
said that the law of British Guiana respectine the apprentices
was the best of the apprentice laws which had been passed hYt
the Colonial Legislatures, or sanctioned by the Crown. 1311,_
the fact was that the apprenticeship Ordinance in British
Guiana was most defective. It contained none of the provisionl
which the old slave law contained, for exempting from bar
labour infirm, and aged, or sick negroes, or women in a state
of pregnancy. The old law enacted that none of those
classes should work more that' thirty-five hours a week for
their master, and that only a particular species of labour ;
whereas the Ordinance of British Guiana allowed the nee3e
-five hours a week, and eon
to be compelled to work fortytarned,
no enactments respecting the quality of the labour.--.( °ear:
free.,
hear.) The Order in Council of 1831 had been most s"
on the question of the supply of food to the aegrokei;
and fixed the day in each week on which the British
supply was to be served out. But under the .lbe
Guiana Ordinance there was no such provision ; and •
negro might have his weekly allowance served out on the
Monday of one week and the Saturday of the next.—alear.
There were other points on which the negro apprentices iveri,„
ill-treated : with regard to the encroachments which were m 56
upon their time, their freedom of access to their relatives at
friends, and the relief which ought to be afforded to the sic;
and infirm, the negroes were in British Guiana in a nersr.
condition than they were under the old slave law.e—("e%
hear.) The allowance of food to the apprentices had bee
reduced more than one- half—( Hear, hear, hear)—no pre-(
vision had been made for the children of the negroes---c
whom there were thousands.—( Hear, hear.) Then trfrie
were no sufficient enactments to preserve the negroes tre‘;_,
wrong. There was no efficient protection for the sptebeli:
Magistrates in the zealous and conscientious discharge of
the
th,
duty--there was no proper tribunal for the valuation„ bear.)
remaining terms of negro apprenticeships.—(H for the
The punishments to be inflicted upon the apprentices
labour'
enforcement of subordination, or for the coercion of o
were most arbitrary and severe. There was no reeiPrce.e,l,rded
protection, for while the planters had every means alle tba
them, by the most heavy penalties, for securing
r..
labour of their apprentices, the apprentices had ce..
tainly no remedy whatever against the oppression of their
masters.—(Hear, hear.) If an apprentice was absent frog)
work one hour he must labour two days extra for his master•
e
If absent seven hours he had one week's additional hard la-
bour. If absent two days, two weeks' hard labour with 16
stripes. If absent a week, three months confinement, with hard
labour and 39 lashes.—( Hear.) Then as to other
For injuries to cattle or neglecting the same, one 111"thl
hard labour and confinement, besides being subjected to
same actions to which free persons were liable. For di501...-
dience to orders, any one or more of the penalties above 0°
merated, which to the special justice might seem fitt!ngs.
For conspiracy, six months hard labour and thirty-nine lasneni
For insubordination or rioting, one weeks' imprisonment
bbe`
hard labour. Yet were they to be told, with such facts
fore them, that the Ordinances for labour in British Genfe,
were not objectionable ?—( Hear, hear.) The combined Goff penaltiesh--,
and operation of such laws was to fence and guard the rise
of the masters in every way, and to give him the highest
terest in the penal labour of the slave. Besides these e.
actments, there was a clause enabling the Special Juste
to prolong the period of apprenticeship for a peiritod
jjelt
of seven years beyond the specified time. The point to iv he
he would now direct the attention of the meeting was t 3,
classification of apprenticed labourers in British
were Guiana,
By the Imperial Act it was directed that all slaves who f
not engaged in agricultural pursuits, or in the manufacture
.°0
produce, were to be considered as non-praedial, and entitledr
their freedom on the Ist of Aueust this year. Every Plinth,
was bound, by the terms of the Act, to give a return, on ea'
of the number of the slaves on his estate, and this return To
to be made in accordance with the principle laid down in tea
Act. Notwithstanding this, it would be found
that
all
planters, in direct violation of their oaths, had returned sir
their slaves as prmdial, and by two proclamations issued by °it
.1. C. Smith on the 2d of Oct. 1833, and the 2d of May, 1834's
would be seen that his Excellency sanctioned these proceeding '
Now the fact was that there were at least 6,000 non-Pr'--f
slaves in the colony, who by this classification were robbed ct
their liberty for two years.—(Hear, hear.) He came new It
c.ansider the actual condition of the slaves in this colony•
was well known that before the Abolition Act was passe,,v
charges of the must fearful description were brought agadli,
the planters of British Guiana. It was asserted in Parliarnen..t
and without contradiction, that they not only overworked b"r,
underfed their slaves to such an extent as to produce a cao a
t dity amongst them. By parliamentary returns it appear d,
that between the years 1817 and 1832, the physical strefigee-
of the colony was reduced 23,644 in a population of 100,0-;
Legislature the slaves should have for the purpose of
wasate h
econcerns i
( Hear, hear.) The time too which it was intended by t'-
finrogm, atnhdemat.tenjd‘inmg market
meeting of pol"a'rinteir)sri
tariff of labour was agreed to, and the forty-five hours wer
which it was directed by the Act should be extended only ove'
five days in the week, was extended over the whole s's'
By that tariff in British Guiana, the negro was compelled,,t°
perform as much labour, as by the stimulus of the whip in ,"e
old time.—( Hear, hear.) To show that he was not spealol
at random on that point, he quoted parts cf the evidence talla
•in the early part of last year before a Court of Inquiry, b';
on the plantation of John and Cove in that colony. The 13-
quiry originated in a charge made by the negroes on that PrJ‘
perty against the managers, on the ground that they were ever;
worked and underfed. On the part of the manager he
crtasrel;ul'll;
counter charge was brought against the negroes, that r
could not get out of them the proper amount of la—Lir,
which the law required. The inquiry had lasted tei
days, and the Justice, whose name was Mackey, had former
when
been manager of the same estate, and was, at the time whel
he conducted this inquiry, and was now, the manager of Cani,
grove estate. This Justice stated that after the Ist of Angcsai
1834, the same amount of labour, exactly, was obtained, frohat
the Negroes as before that period. He ( Mackey) sai,u' t`
by
in apportioning the labour of the Negroes, he was guided ted
the tariff. This witness stated, farther, that the tariff ac_as
upon by Smith, the manager of John and Cove estate, "tile
exactly the same as that which was in operation before the
apprenticeship. A witness of the name of Ilervey stated that
.01,
people were worked consecutively until they completed their ~ad
which was the same as the tariff which he (Mr. Scoble)
described—that is to say, as in their old state of slavery'
( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Seoble) had also the valuable
very
timony of Michael, the foreman on that pl labou-
antation, a r
intelligent negro, who stated that the people had more ~.ad
to do in cutting canes since the apprenticeship, than they." e•
before in their old state of slavery in Mr. Heyland's turd,
The people had no time for rest--they had to labour tooh:0_
no allowance being made to them in going to or retur ilorbt
from their labour. From all the evidence before that inclusele
it was clear that the tariff was as severe as before thoefillea
prenticeshie, but that part which required two negroes t tice_
punt of canes was enormously severe, as before the aPPren Of
ship four were allowed for that task.—( Hear, hear.) eery
course the meeting would not be surprised that
aunder
large amount of produce was raised in that colony,
ears
the new system.--( Hear, hear.) The produce of theY
and
1832 and 1833, when compared with that of
1835 latter
1836, showed a large surplus in favour of
th°
ters to
years. In the returns which had been made by the
Planount of
the Government in the years 1832 and 1833, the arand
1836
sugar produce was 193,487,9221b5., whereas in 1835
o sugar
the amount was 213,392,6541b5., leaving a surpluos4,7f 32
lbs.
produce alone, in favour of the latter years, of 19,9
But in the meantime there had been a considerable
waste of
life. There had been a diminution of 2,428 in the number of
the negroes. The average of labourers in the years 1832 and
1833 was 72,839, but that number had been diminished by
2,428 in the nears 1835 and 1836 ; so that 70,432 negroes pro-
clued 19,904,7321b5, of sugar more under the apprenticeship sys-