Star.
London, England, 1824-10-05 00:00:00

7~

—~,a

Triaidada would not, on the plan proposed, hold out to
adventurers so good a field for the acquisition of a rapid
fortune as our Slave Colonies, while we are able to
preserve them, may in general afford."
But 4 may be imagined, that, whatever Opinions are
comprised in these quotations, Mr. Stephen may, since
the year 1802, have changed his opinions; and that,
theiefdre it is, that the Reviewer is charged with 'hav-
ing acted unfairly or illiberally, in quoting the opinions
of Mr. Stephen in 1802, against him, without, at the
same ti mei informing his readers that hequoted them for
their abstract emit, and not as the present opinions of the
writer. This point is, however, fortunately set at rest by
the following passage, abstracted from page 90, of a
work entitled, " The Slavery of the British West India
Colonies delineated ;" by James Stephen, Esq. published
in 1824. Mr. Stephen there states, in a note, that Mr.
Barham, in his " Considerations on the isholitif.m of
Slavery," has repeated the statement which his brethren,
the Sugar Planters, have told the public; that the
labour of a week Will, in the tropical climate of the:
part of the West Indies, furnish subsistence for a year.
Mr. Stephen adds—.

" A hunched West Indian Authorities might be cited
to the same effect ; and I have one at present before me,
which may be more satisfactory, because it comes from
Hayti,- where the theory is, in some degree, reduced into
practice; the Negroes there working for themselves at their
own choice, and tnany of them, doubtless, earn no more than
the subsistence of their famaies demands. 8 L'Ambition
n'agite gi.eie les espi its sur sol ou l'homme qui trava lle
one demi heure par jour obtient sa subsistance pendant
un semaine—President Boyer's Defence of the Union
of Spanish St. Domingo with the Ittytiln Republic,
publi hed in Le Propagator Haitien, No. 1."
I o ill add no more upon this subject, as I feel confident
that this unparalleled attempt on the part of AsoLus
to pervert the truth, has.been sufficiently exposed to sa-
tisfy every honourable and unprejudiced mind of the
true measure cf fairness that may be expected from bis
reasonings.
If the Reviewer is wrong in the opinion that a slave,
suddenly emancipated, without the probation of index
try, or the improvement of moral - and religious culti-
neigh is not likely to become an industrious free la-
'bearer, ready and willing to work for hire, then is also
Mr. Stephea wrong. But what could have prompted
/WOWS to prefer this absurd and groundless charge
flgainst the Reviewer ? Why has be also described him
as cleaving to the whip, when the Review is written is'
defence of the Order in Council which abolishes the
whip ? I challenge him to cite a passage, or a context
of passages, in support of this charge, though I well
know that he will shrink from the challenge. Why has
he preferred it? Why has he characterised the Re-
viewer as 88 an advocate of slavery?" I repeat my
challenge, to :hew one word that can justify such an
imputation. Why, then, does he throw it out? The
answer is, because he has learnt that, in conducting a
weak argument, " it is an artifice to be used, to begin
some personality, or to throw in something that may
bring on a personal altercation, and draw off the atten-
tion from the main point."f
I remain your obedient humble servant,
VINDEL