Star.
London, England, 1824-10-11 00:00:00

WEST INDIA SLAVERY.

LETTER V.
TO Tun EI)(TO1t TIIE STAR.
SIR—ANGL.u.s will excuse me for remarking that the
more carefully I exa•nine his criticisms on the (, uarteda
Review, the more I am compelled to consider him a,
involved in one of these two alternatives—either that he
does net understand his subjects—or that, nudes stand-
ing it, he thinks it expedient to perplex the question. •
The leading argument in the Review appears to me
to be an extremely simple one,—the staple production
of the West Indies is sugar. Sugar is cultivated there
by means of slave-labour, and if the state of slave:)•
were abolished without the substitution of other certain
means of cultivation, the Proprietor of steam. might be
exposed to the most ruinous consequeaces.—lf it could
be-shewn that the only effect of the emancipation of
the Slaves would be to furnish the Proprietor with free
labourers to be paid by hire, instead of Slaves to be
sustained at the master's.expense, themselves and their
families, in sickness and in health, in infancy and in
age,—in such a case, the only demonstration of injury
would be on the side of a master objecting to so bene-
ficial a change. The simple argument, therefore, of the
Review is this—and ANGLUS c.rnnot but compreheied it,
that it is inevitable that a considerable time mitst elapse
helot e this substiturien of free labourers for Slaves can
be practically effected : that certain progressive changes,
which are described by the Reviewer, may ultimately
produce this desirable effect ;—and that if the course of
these progressive and natural changes be accelerated
by direct legislation,—that is, in other words, if Slavery
he abolished before free labourers, willing and able to
work, are forthcoming at the call of the Proprietor of
Sugar Estates,—a claim will exist en the part of the
Proprietor, for compensation, in proportion to the rate
of loss at king from the acceleration wita which those
changes have been brought on.
The practical question then turns on the fact, whether
such facilities of flee labour do at present exist? The
Review expresses no scepticism as to the possibility of
such a substitution at a future period, but avows its
entire ignerance of any precedent, sufficiently direct to
:justify the assertion thatit has ever, as yet, been success-
fully made in the West Indies.
ANGLUS says, " if we look round the West Indies,
" we shall find many thousands of emancipated Slaves
" and their descendants, toiling. industriously, accumu-
" letting property, acquiring knowledse, fulfilling the
" relative duties of life, rising into moral destine-
" tion, and striving manfully and perseveringly, but
66 submissively, against the civil and political evils
" which tend to crush their efforts ;" and then he pro-
ceeds with this sentence, " 6 Oh, but,' says the Reviewer,
they will not cultivate sugar collectively.' "—My ob-
servation on this is, that the Reviewer says no such
thing ; but if he did, of what practical value would all
these high moral qualifications be to the planter, who,
having lost the services of his slave, is seeking the ser-
vices of a free labourer ? Lean upon ANGLUS to inform
the Public (for he may be satisfied that these letters will
sooner or later be read, and compared, and examined)
where exist these " many thousands of emancipated
'"
slaves and their descendants"? How many acres of
,land do they cultivate?—how many hours in the day ,
do they work in their fields?—how many days do they
labour in the year?—what is the result of their proJuc-
tive industry in agricultural labour, either in wages or
in crops, having an exchangeable value in Europe, and
particularly in sugar? A clear detailed statement on
such points as these is precisely the sett of information
whiz]) the Reviewer considers as so valuable, and which
would, if supplied with accuracy and good faith, give
such inestimable advantage to the side of the question
for which Ateoaus is retained, in comparison %side that
which can be derived from declamation unsupported
by detail.
ANGLUS supposes the case of a sugar estate in
Jamaica, cultivated by flee Negroes in small farms,
the canes grown on which are to be manufactured in
the Sugar-works retained in the hands of the Proprie-
tor of the estate: and he asks the Reviewer, why should
not such a plan succeed? But he must be aware that
the question is• not a hypothetical one (whether with
relation to that or to any other system) but a practical
one ;—has such a plan ever succeeded in .Jamaica or any
other West India Island ?—And is it not desirable to
have something more than hypothesis for your basis,
when you propose to remove, by the legislation of an
hour, a system which has existed for centuries?
But then ANGLUS triumphantly informs the Re-
viewer, that in the East Indies, sugar has for many
years past been produced by hired labour, and that con-
sequently, his argument as to the present inefficiency of
hired labour for time purpose of sugar cultivation in the
West Indies is utterly absurd and irrelevant. Now, I
would beg to inquire what possible bearing can the
mode of manufacturing sugar in Java or in the East
Indies, by hired labour, have on the question of Slavery
in the West Indies, that would not equally apply
if sugar were raised in the West Indies by the
means of fi ee Blacks? The question, therefore,
of East India sugar is at least a compound one,
and ought not to be introduced as a Main argument
into an inquiry as to the best means of dealing with
West India slavery. It is a question which could, as I
have already said, be as conveniently entertained if the
West ladia slaves were emancipated, or had been so a
century ago. It is one of pare political economy. If it
can be demonstrated that the English consumer can buy
his sugar cheaper from the East than from the West
Indian, it may be a reason for abolishing any mono-
poly which the West Indian may enjoy, provided Mat
no counter-considerations interpose to limit (lie application
of a sound general principle. The same observation
would apply strictly to the Corn question, and may be
stated in exactly the same words. If it can be demon-
strated that the English consumer can buy his corn
cheaper from the foreign than from the domestic pro-
ducer, it may be a reason for abolishing any monopoly
which the domestic producer (that is, the British farmer,)
may enjoy, provided that no counter-considerations inter-
pose to limit the application of a sound general principle.
But A Noeusis well awate that the counter-considerations
in both these instances are so numerous and important as
to requite the must minute and extensive separate ex-
amination. But v hat real argument is there in the
whole doctrine of sletraus on this point ? Has hesuc-
ceeded in shewing that the Reviewers absurd in
doubting the immediate efficacy of bee 1 tbour in
the West Indies, because free labour produces sugar
in the East Indies or in Java. Is he not aware
that to prove his argument, lie must shew that the
impulses which influence productive industry in those
respective countries aec similar, whether arising from
local laws and usages, the institution of castes, or,
above all, from equal density of population ? In Cole-
btooke's " Bengal Husbandry' (writtea Mt, ant%