Star.
London, England, 1824-09-20 00:00:00

rash andill-infOrnied tritic-i—decidedly the lighter evil
of the two. -
Ist. knglus asserts, "that by the Spanish law the
slaves, besides Sunday. are entitled to a day in each
week and to SO holidays in the year, to be employed for
their own benefit." By " the Order in Council" he pro-
ceeds, " no time exclusive of Sunday is. allotted to the
slave," I greatly regret that Anglus has not stated
the authority upon which he makes this assertion re-
specting the law of Spain. In whit title of the Reco-
pilacion, or in what law of the Partidas, is this privi-
lege granted? In neither of these Codes will any such
law be discovered. Probably, however, Anglus may re-
fer to the Cedula published at Aranjuez on the 31st
May, 1789, and printed by-order of the House of Com-
mons on the 81st May, 1811. Yet even in this cele-
brated enactment, I perceive no law to the effect stated
by him. Perhaps it may be unknown to him, that be-
fore Trinidad became a possession of the British Crown,.
the law of 1789 had been repealed by the Spanish Go-
vet ument. But I %% ill admit, for the sake of argument„
that such a law as that mentioned by Anglus, did form
a part of the Slave Code of Trinidad. I ask him, then,
in what part of the recent Order in Council does he
find one wood which directly or indirectly repeals it?
Where, then, is the " oversight" so confidently imputed
to the framers of this Order?

2d. Anglus complains that the Order in Council,
while it prohibits labour for the master on Sunday, has
•given the slave no other time to work upon his provi-
sion grounds. A less determined objector might, per-
haps, have discovered that the law which interdicts la-
bour on Sunday, recognizes, by necessary implication,
the principle that the labour of six days is to provide
for the maintenance of the labourer. The master is
bound to feed his slave, and the law will enforce the
obligation. there would have been tittle wisdom in
prescribing to the master the mode in which his slaves
should be supported. , if the system of granting provi-
sion grounds be the most economical, the interest of the
master Of irds sufficient security that this system will
be pursued.
3d. Anglus asserts, that by the Spanish law, husband
and wife cannot be separated by sale or transfer ; but
that by the Order in Council, " the prohibition to se-
parate is restricted to judicial sales." I can find no such
restriction. The Order, it is true, relates only to judicial
sales; but if such a law as Anglus menti•ns already ex-
isted, it certainly is not repealed by this Order, and as
certainly it would have been idle to re-enact it;—but
again I assert, that no such law did exist, anti if I am
wrong, Anglus will perhaps have the goodness to quote
it verbatim.

4th. "By the Spanish law, the testimony of slaves is re-
ceived in all cases quantum valeat." For this assertion
Anglus does not quote his authority, and though I be-
lieve it to be an error, I will, for the purpose of argu-
ment, admit that he is right: but what has this to do
with the Order in Council? That Order expressly re-
serves to the slaves ever/ right of giving testimony which
they beffire enjoyed.* How then can they suffer by it
any diminution of these rights? or how can it be ex-
plained that so acute a writer as Anglus has not per-
ceived this answer to his own.objection ? Does he con-
found the draft of the Order in Council subjoined to the
Parliamentary papers with the Order itself ?
sth. But the Order holds out " an actual premium to
murder." Strange, indeed, if true] To this most sin-
gular conclusion Anglus is led by the following chain
of reasoning, "If," he says, "a white man should be
twice convicted of, cruelly treating a slave, he forfeits,
according to the Order, all the slaves he possesses.
Would he escape this calamitous result, he has nothing
so do but to kill the stave outright, and then, his life
being in jeopardy, no slave evidence can be received
against him." To this I answer, first, that if, as An-
glus asserts, such evidence was admissible before the
Order, the admissibility of it is expressly declared by
the Order; and, secondly, that the same reasoning might
be applied to cases much more familiar to most of us.
Do I contemplate picking a pocket—a much better plan
will be to begin by cutting the throat of the bearer, be-
cause then the witness of my guilt cannot be produced
against me; therefore the law gives a direct premium
to the cutting of throats, and directly tends to convert
pickpockets into assassins.
After this explanation I would inquire &ohs Anglus,
whether he really thinks that he is serving " the cause
of the slaves," by giving such fallacious and incorrect
representations of the measures adopted by his Majesty's
Government; and whether, with Respect to tht Older
in Council, of which many persons connected with the
West Indies complain with bitterness, though not, as I
think, with reason,—the Government has not a right to
expect a candid and cautious construction even from
Anglus himself ?—I am, &c. ace. &c.
VINDEX.

• The words of the Order are, " Provided always that nothing
herein contained shall extepd to take away or diminish any power
and authority which any Court of Criminal Jurisdiction in the said
Colony now bath to admit in any ease the evidence of persons being
in a state of slavery."