The Sun.
London, England, 1838-03-30 00:00:00

the 31st of July, 1834, and ending the 31st of July, 1835,
8,152 apprentices had received punishment, 2,171 by flogging
with the cat, and 5,981 by mulcts of time, or other manor
punishments. From this period he found that the average '
progressively increased ; and though from time to time h. e
found the Governor representing the colony as most tranquil,
prosperous, and happy, the documents showed, up to the last
period to which they had been made out, an increase of one-
eighth on the average, over the worst period before the passing
of the Act. He had next to refer the House to some abstracts of
the official records of the colony of Demerara on the subject of
punishment. It appeared that upon 736 apprentices out of 3,200,
the number on 17 estates in that province, there had been inflict-
ed within the period of eight months after the passing of the
Slavery Abolition Act, 7,154 stripes of the cat, of imprison-
ment 58 weeks, of hard labour on the estates 525 weeks, of
tread-mill punishment 464 weeks, of confinement by night
after labour by day 335 weeks, and of solitary confinement
134 weeks. But the point which he found most difficult to
account for, was the great increase of produce since 1834, not-
withstanding the decrease of population. This, he thought,
strongly called for some explanation. As regarded female
slaves, it was notorious they now suffered much more than they
had done before 1834. Before the passing of the Slavery
Abolition Act, every woman who had borne six children was
freed altogether from labour in the field, and before an d after
each confinement was allowed respite from work during two or
three months. This had wholly ceased since the passing of the
Act. The mothers of six children, pregnant women, the aged
and infirm, all had to work the full period ; and even though in
many instances they had to walk six miles to the place of their
employment, no allowance was made for the time so consumed,
the planter requiring them to give the full period allowed
by the Act at actual work. A case had been detailed to him
of a female apprentice named Susan, the wife of the head
man on an estate in the colony of Demerara. T. his woman
was approaching her period of confinement, and in vain ap-
plied for permission to absent herself from work. The result
.
was, she was actually taken with the pains of labour the
field ; and on being sent to the sick house gave birth to
a child, only attended by an old deaf woman, and a young
girl who was confined there with sores in her legs, and
without having any of the requisites for a person in her
situation. The day but one after she was obliged to return
to her work. Under the old slavery system there was no
instance to be adduced of similar cruelty. But he must say a
word respecting the sick-houses to which he had alluded. In
Demerara the sick-house was considered a place of punish-
ment. Every one going into it was suspected of feigning ill-
ness, and in consequence were what is called tested. The
commonest medicines employed for this purpose were tartar
emetic, assafeetida, and lamp-oil. The inmates were inva-
riably locked up, and only allowed to go through the door to
be examined by the medical attendant. They had no com-
fort, and the want of ventilation and other conveniences made
a visit to it perfectly disgusting. Surely this was not what
the people of England anticipated. He had next to call
the attention of the House to the system of passes granted to
the apprentices to go off the estate to which they belonged.
Without one of these passes no negro could on any account
leave the property on which he worked. And he would
proceed to show how inconsistent these documents were with
the system the people of England had hoped to establish
through the medium of the Abolition Act.—[The Hon. Mem-
ber here read to the House several of these passes.] In one
instance, it was a man wanting to attend the funeral of his own
child in another, to permit a couple to get married. Surely
all this was illegal ; and yet, if they were not absolutely ne-
cessary they would not have been demanded. He held in his
hand another document, written by a slave owner to a clergy-
man, requesting him not to marry two apprentices, on the
ground that the man had not obtained his permission to be
married, adding, that if the couple were united, he would
take effectual means to prevent their ever meeting. With
respect to any danger to be apprehended from immediate
casancipation, from all that he had read and heard on the
subject, he did not believe that such a step would be at-
tended with the slightest risk. In fact, the negroes had
already been emancipated in some of the estates of Jamaica.
Those on a large plantation belonging to the Marquis of
Sligo had been made free by that Noble Lord at a moment's
notice, without the presence of any ;magistrates, constables,
or police, and not the slightest inconvenience had ensued.
It had been said by an individual who had a written a book
on the subject, that if the negroes were emancipated they were
so illy disposed that they would refuse to labour ; but in ano-
ther part of his work the writer confuted this statement, by
observing that in Guiana and Trinidad they had been corn-
polled to enforce a law preventing the negroes from hiring
themselves .out to labour on the Sabbath-day. In whatever
'may he considered the subject, whether he regarded it as a
[}natter of mere expediency, or as a matter of justice, whether
he looked at it with reference to the interests of the planter, or
with reference to the interests of the negro, he was persuaded
that there was nothing to fear, and that there was everything
to hope from the immediate abolition of the existing system.
The Hon. Member proceeded to read a number of letters and
other documents in support of this opinion. The first was
from a Member of the House of Assembly in Jamaica, who
declared that he was so far from being opposed to the termi-
nation of the system of apprenticeship in August, 1834, that be
highly approved of it ; and that he thought the resolution
passed by the House of Assembly, not to listen to any propo-
sition for an abridgment of the term, exceedingly disgraceful.
Another letter stated that if the writer were to liberate the
negroes which he possessed, Jamaica would soon be made by
the planters too hot for him and his family. Another owner
of negroes expressed his decidod opinion that he was at pre-
sent at a much greater expense than he should be if the sys-
tem of apprenticeship were abolished. A Baptist Missionary
at Jamaica, in a letter to a friend, observed that the prevailing
opinion there was that in the event of protracting the appren-
ticeship to the term originally fixed—August, 1838—" death
or liberty" would be the motto of the slaves ; an opinion in
which the writer coincided. Another missionary said that a
great deal of agitation existed on the subject; and that all
the efforts of the missionaries to tranquillize the negroes would
be in vain, unless measures were taken in England for that
purpose ; and added, that he and his friends needed his
correspondent's sympathy and prayers. The Hon. Member
proceeded to read the petition which he had presented to
the House a few weeks ago, signed by the Baptist mis-
sionaries in all the larger districts of the island of Jamaica,
and which, if there had been time, would have been signed
by all the Baptist missionaries in the island. He begged to
call the attention of the House to the character of these in-
dividuals, who had left every worldly advantage to perform
what they felt to be a sacred duty, who preached to hundreds
and thousands of the negroes, who were intimately ac-
quainted with the character, habits, and feelings, of the
negroes, and who in their petition represented the great
advantages which would result from terminating the ap-
prenticeship system in August next. He was perfectly pre-
pared- for an attack on immediate emancipation upon the
ground of broken faith and broken contract. Ho denied
the fact; and argued that from the very terms of the Act
of 1833, such an attack had no foundation. The Honourable
Gentleman was beginning to contend that pecuniary policy,
that commercial policy, that the advantage of the planter, that
the advantage of the apprentice, that the cause of justice, that
the interest of humanity, all combined to recommend the im-
mediate abolition, but suddenly became so overpowered by his
feelings that he was unable to proceed.—(Loud cheers re-
sounded from all sides.) " The House will pardon me," con-
cluded Mr. Pease, " for having so long trespassed upon their
attention. lam unable to go on. But when that great and
solemn day shall come--when I shall myself stand in need of
mercy—l hope it will be meted to me in the same measure as
I am disposed to mete it to others."—( Hear. )
Sir G. GREY said the grounds on which he should resist
the motion were short and simple. There had been a solemn
compact and engagement made in 1832, with a full understand-
ing of all the attendant circumstances and consequences; and,
as one of the parties, they had no right to violate its provisi▪
ons.
He was astonished to hear that that compact was denied in ano-
ther place, by a Member of the very Government who made
it
—( Cheersl—establishing four years for the apprenticeship •
of
prmelial labourers and six years in the case of non-prmelials.
The Noble Lord opposite introduced twelve years for the
term of apprenticeship in the first instance ; but upon subse-
quent discussion (in the debate upon the " instruction"
brought forward by Mr. Buxton) the period of four years and
six years respectively were established instead. (Here the
Right Hon. Baronet rapidly referred to extracts from the
speeches of Lord Stanley, Lord Althorp, Mr. Buxton, and
himself, confirmatory of the understanding upon which
the altered terms were adopted, in connection with
the increased grant of twenty millions to the plant-
ers.) He could not conceive how any Honourable Member
could now come forward and demand the abolition of the re-
maing two years of that arrangement. They had already
strong remonstrances from the West India planters, complain-
ing of the breach of compact committed by the alteration
of the twelve years term to four and six years. It was
declared on the other hand, that the concession of the
20,000,0001. was a piece of wanton, and needless extra-
vagance. It was a narrow policy to assert that we were bound
to leave the planters under all the disadvantages and losses
which
.they laboured previous to the passing of the Abolition
Act while the law of slavery was in force. When he saw that
the twenty millions were finding their way from this country
to the colonies, paying off incumbrances, providing the means
ofimprovement on estates which lay unproductive for the
want of them, or conveying new agricultural implements for
the relief and supercession of manual labour on estates where
the negroes had hitherto been overworked—when he found
our West India exports increased and their exports pro-
portionably diminished—all evincing an appropriation of
wealth, and comfort, and means of improvement in those
colonies hitherto unprecedented, he could not hesitate to
credit the concurrent testimony of the reports laid on
that table, and to believe the fact that the Abolition Act had
worked real good to all parties in our West Indian posses-
sions-7( Hear, hear)—and that the population of those islands
had risen within the last four years by the expenditure of the
planters to a high degree of comfort and improvement—
( Hear, hear.) He objected to the statements brought for-
ward in support of the arguments that the compact had been
broken by the planters—stating facts as they did singly, and
without their proper context ; without the favourable instances
which might serve to balance them, and without any allusion
either to the present or prospective advantages resulting, or
likely to result, from the abolition of slavery.—( Loud cheers. )
The planters had lent their aid to carry out the law with
good faith, and ought to have the benefit of their exertions.
Here the Right Hon. Baronet referred to the correspondence
of Lord Sligo with Lord Glenolg, descriptive of the conduct
of the planters in Jamaica, stating that humanity was the rule
and cruelty the exception, and asking for greater powers from
home to check abuses. He also quoted the opinion of Elias
Smith, which deserved particular attention. That gentleman
said that the strong statements which had found their way
from this country to Barbadoes had done more than anything
else to postpone the beneficial operation of the apprenticeship
system, for the planters had now got the idea into their beads