The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-31 00:00:00

bound to answer what'was said by the Hon..BatTnet who
had just eat down. ' In doing so, he intended -to fellow,
that course which ine 'flattered himself he hid folloaved on,
a former occasion. namely—avoid all acrimonious !epees-.
'inns, and refrain firm dropping one word that might be
offensive to any individual or any body of persons. He
hoped be should he able' to follow in that line, notwith-
standing the speech of the • Hon. Baronet, which came
with peculiarly bid grace from him, since he hadintro-
duced into the body of it every species' of topic liable to
*excite angry feelings, though the Hon. Baronet had prefaced
that speech by declaring hia intention of refraining
from all such topics. The Hon. Baronet had alluded to
- reform, and what was expected from it—to the address
of Lord Mulgrave to the Legislative Assembly-ato the
answer from that Aiseantoty to his Lordship—to the
angry answers from Jimaiea to the questions of Govern.
ment, and bad, besides those allusions, held out a threat
that Government would be obliged to recede from their
resolutiqns by foreign interference. The Hon. Baronet
afterwards delivered a charge against those who, on the
busting., had promised that when they got into that
House they would do all they could to effect the total
' abolition of slavery. He was surprised that such a charge
should be made by the Hon. Gentleman, as it implied,
for the first time, his wish to do away with slavery.
The Hon. Gentleman talked of the present plan as being
no abolition of slavery; be talked of abolishing slavery,
but it was abolishing it in the abstract, and he (Mr.
Stanley) feared, if the matter were left to the Hnn
Baronet and his friends, there was a strong probability
that slavery would long remain in the abstract.--(Hear,
hear ) I', in the comments he had made on a former
' • occasion, he had let slip any allusions to any body or
sect, he assured the Committee they were forced from
him, and only made to show the necessity there was of
that House interfering in matters of internal colonial re-
gulation. He adhered to what be had before said on the
subject of interference, when he -mentioned that he knew
no limit to the interference of Parliament in the inter-
nal regulations of the colonies, save the limit that Par-
liament itself imposed --(Hear.) The Hon. Baronet
had contended that Parliament could not interfere with
the chartered colonies. Now he was absolutely asto-
nished that such an assertion should have been made by
the Hon. Baronet, when he granted the interference in
one case—namely, in the ab litien of the slave trade. But
then the Hon. Gentleman might say, that was a case that
did not refer to one isle or isles ; that it was a general—
an imperial—questing; that it generally affected govern-
ment, trade, and n rvigation ; and that all were interested
in the abolition of the slave trade. Well, he thought that
the present question was a general one; and he. was jus•
tified in thinking so, if the numerous petitions that were
pouring in from both aides had any meaning in them.
Those petitions came froth a multitude of persons ; and
when the Hon. Baronet characterised the question as being
a local one, he (Mr. Stanley) durst not hazard himself
to say all-that he thought of such a very strange assertion.
He considered that opinion upon the subject was general,
and that it ought not to be resisted by Government, when
it was so unequivocally expressed upon such a question as
the present. He would not dwell any longer on the policy
or impolicy of the species of interference alluded to, fur
he would now go on to answer some of the charges made
by the Hen. Barenet. It seem-d that, in the Hon.
Baronet's opinion, he (Mr. Stanley) had not avoided
what I e meant to avoid—making sweeping assertions,
and that he had failed ro point out how each individual
isle had fallen short of the orders of the Legislature.
However, he admitted, and had already stated, that the
Colonial Legislature wished to meet the wishes
of- the Government on that point, and that it had
removed some of the impediments in the way of mar-
riage.—(Hear.) Yet he was also obliged to state,
that it certainly was not the general disposition of colonial
proprietors to infuse into the minds of the slave a prop. r
idea of the solemnity of the marriage vow ; that they did
not seem inclined to discourage licentiousness amongst
slaves, which not only struck at the root of all morality,
but tended to lessen the slave population. He said this,
but, at the same time, he was ready to admit that some
improvements had been made in the way of marriage.
• Fallowing up how slightly the marriage ties were attended
to, he had only to mention the fact of the separation of
families by the selling of slaves. If the present method of
selling slaves were allowed, what sanctity could the slave
see in the marriage ties, when he had continually before
his ey. a the fear of brine' separated from his wae, in order
that some civil compact should be fulfilled ? So long as
the slave could' be sold for the debts contracted by the
owner, so long would all improvements with respect to
marriage he of little avail. The Hon. Baronet had after-
wards
attacked his proposition with respect to punish-
ment. Whenever he stated anything incorrectly—when-
ever be was mistaken, he was the first to confess
his error, and was most willing to be set right.
H- allowed that he was mistaken in what he had lately
said about the law of Jamaica, for he found that he had
confounded it wi h the law of Dominica. The proceeds
of the slave, when sold in consequence of too severe
7 unisbment, did not go to the master. However, what he
bad said of punishment and of the twenty-nine lathes was
supported by the evidence of an old planter before the 1
Committee of Inquiry. By the law of Jamaica, wanton
punishment on the pare of the owner was liable to be
punished by that law. But what was the use of that I Jae
if its enactments were devoid of the executory principle?
In fact, it was little better than so much waste pop'r.
The Hon. Baronet could not show that there were inde-
pendent protectors of slaves. The very nature of their
appointment prevented them from acting with impar-
tiality. But, then, the slave could complain to a magis
trate. Let the slave be been before a 'magistrate ; be must
bring testimony to prove over-punishment ; if the
magistrate was satisfied with the evidence, he could
punish the owner; but if not satisfied, he could
order the complaining slave to be flagged.—( Hear, hear.)
As on a former occasion he had touched on the law of
evidence, and had shown that in some islands it was corn
pletely frittered away, and that in many it went against
this principle of obtaining for the slave justice in a Court
of law, he should make but a few additional remarks upon
that same point. He was sorry to trouble the Com-
mittee again with the details, but he felt obliged to give
a few. According to the law of St. Kitt's, no slave
could be a witness in any cause, either civil or criminal, in
which the owe er, his attorney, or his overseer was con-
cerned. In N-via the slave was excluded from giving
evidence pretty nearly in the same way. In Bermuda the
slave was excluded in all cases where the owner, or any
of the owner's family were directly or indirectly concerned.
jaeairles, he was disqualified to give evidence against his
waster, and yet his evidence in favour was good.—(Hear )
Therefore it might happen that two slaves should be placed
insuch relations to one another, that the evidence of one
eepuld be considered good, and that of the other of no
use, He would now come to the slave law of Jamaica
upon which the Hon. Gentleman had laid so much stress.
How stood the law of Jamaica? The Hon. Baronet
stated that a slave's evidence was good against the life of
a black man, but that it was not good when the property
of a white man was concerned, and that in civil causes
his evidence was not good either against the black or
white man. So that what be formerly aid was true,
that the slave's evidence was good against the life of the
black man, but not good when property was in question.
Moreover, the evid.nce was good for nothing unless it
was supported by the evidence of a second person. He
would not go inen further minute details, but would come
to the last point alluded to by the Hon. Baronet, as it
bore on the case of atrocious punishment. In such a
case it was true, as the Honourable Baronet had stated,
that the slave was fm felted, and that the pri,e did not
ge to the owner. But there was great difficulty on
the lank: of the slave to prove atrocious punisnment;
and, after all, though he should prove it, be would not
Ina relieved from his sufferings. It would be only
changing one master for another. He mentioned all
this about Jamaica, because the Henourab e Baronet ape
pealed to that island as a model of colonial legislation. Now
he would leave it to the House ehether, alter alt they had
heara, they could think that the unassist•d rife, is of the
colonial legislature would had to the abolition of slavery.
The West India body had expressed themselves ch sirous
of having the matter fuly investigated, and he must say,
that Government left to them the choice of having the
Pornmit• ees of last year continued. They could not com-
pere; fur, besides leaving them that choice, they were
also told that 'Government, on its own respensib lity,
would come forward with a measure on colonial slavery,
and that if they had any objection, they might move for
as renewal of the inquiry in either of the Houses of Par-
Ii i
au!sint. With respect to arranging the matter by nego-
tiation, t was utterly impossible. No negotiation could
tote place between two parties, when one would of ar no
imptaveolent or modification, and was only authorized to
object and to reject. When lie first came into the office
Jag had the honour to fid, he felt it his duty to converse
with tbe gentlemen who formed the West India deputa-
tion, arid be told them that the Government thought it
their duty to come to proceedings and arrangements in
concurrence with the deputation, that would lead to the
extinction of slavery. The deputation were told that
ultimate extinction must form the basis of any plan pro-
posed by the Government. The deputation confessed
they had no power. But four of the deputation subsequ!ntly
made a proposition—not an authorized one—but asap
i indi-
vidual proposition. He should not have alluded to t had
it not got abroad in the shape of a published document.
The propositivo was this...tbat a gram of )4 millions