Star.
London, England, 1828-01-21 00:00:00

The penalties denounced upon persons collecting con-
tributions from slaves, for purposes either of charity or
religion, cannot but be felt both by the teachers and
by their followers, as humiliating and unjust. Such a
law would affix an unmerited stigma on the religious
instructor ; and it prevents the slave from obeying a
positive precept of the Christian religion, which he be-
lieves to be obligasory on him, and which is not incon-
sistent with the duties he owes to his master. The

prohibition is, therefore, a gratuitous aggravation of the
evils of his condition.

It may be doubtful whether the restriction upon pri-
vate meetings among the slaves, without the knov►ledge
of the owner, warintentionally pointed at the meetings
for religious worship. No objection, of course, could
exist to req tiring that•-notice should be given to the
owner or manager wile :ever the slave attended any such
meetings; but, on the other hand, due security should
be taken that the owner's authority is not improperly
exerted to prevent the attendance of the slaves.
I cannot too distinctly impress upon you, that it is
the settled purpose of his Majesty's Government to
sanction no colonial law, which needlessly infringes on
the religious liberty of any class of his Majesty's subjects,
and you will understand that you are not to assent to
any 13t11 imposing arty restraint of that nature, unless a
'clause be inserted for suspending its operation until his
Majesty's pleasure shall be known.
Having• thus adverted to this most important branch
of the general subject, .1 proceed to inquire how far the

suggestions contained in L'rd Bathurst's dispatch of
the 11;h of May. 1826, have been followed in the Act

under consideration.

The Council of Protection, established under the
thirty-third clause of this Act, cannot be considered as

an effectual substitute for the office of s distinct and

independent protector. The council in each parish will
consist of those individuals over whom the protector was
to exercise his superintendence. Their duties are limited-
to the simple case of extreme bodily injury, and are to
bealis.cbarged only " if they think proper." The periodi-
cal returns requited from theProtector,upon oath,are not
to be made by the Council of Protection, nor are they

even hound to keep a journal of their proceedings. No
provision is made for executing the duties of the office
in different pasts of the colony upon fixed and uniform
principles, and the number of persons to be united in
this trust is such as entirely to destroy the sense of per-
sonal and iadiyidual responsibility.
In the provisions for the due observance of Sunday,-
I remark that the continuance of the markets on dist
SINN Wass bour of eleven, is contemplated as a per-
Moneta re/Onion. It is, however, impossible to sanction
this systematic violation of the law prevailing in every.
other Christian gauntry. In the proposals transmitted
by Leidßalburst to bisOrace the Duke of Manchester,
a temporary delpatture frota,this ru►e was permitted,
but only as a xelaxation required by peculiar and tran-
sitory circumstances.

The clauses denouncing penalties on persons employing
their dares to labour on Sunday, ate expressed with
some ambiguity, so as to leave it doubtful whether the
penalty will be incurred at any other time than daring
csop, or for any work, excepting that required about the,
mills.. Neither is it clear that an owner, procuring his,
slaves to workon Sunday by persuasion, or by any other
means than these of direct compulsion, would violate
the law. Ido not perceive that provision is made for
those cases of unavoidable necessity which would create
Inn exception to the general rule.
?unishments inflicted by the domestic authority of
abe owner Are not required to be made the subject of a
eeport to any public officer, nor doej the law require,
Au any interval •should elapse between the commission
niabecrime and the infliction of the punishment. The
frosence of free witnesses at the infliction of punishments
•u not declared necessary, nor would the law be broken,
whateur might be the severity of the punishment, if it
were inflicted by any other method than that of
whipping or imprisonment. The use of the whip in
.the field is not forbidden. Women are not exempted
Iron] p%nishment by .flogging, nor is any presumption,
of guilt to arise, if the slave shall make a 14 probable,
paetieplar, and consistent" charged against his owner,
confirmed by the exhibition of his person, bearing the
marks of recent and illegal punishment.
In all these respects the provisions of this Act fall'
short of the recommendations of his Majesty's Govern-
went. It remains to notice other provisions upon this
subject of punishment, which have been originally sug-
gested by Me Colonial Legislature.
The Act appears to sanction an unlimited delegation
of the power of punishment, so that even a fellow-slave
might be entrusted with it, provided that the correction
does not exceed ten lashes. In the presence of the
owner or manager, thirty-nine lashes may be inflicted
by his authority, an extent of power which cannot be
necessary, and which might probably be the source of
scrims abuse.
The 37th,Seetion of this Act authorises private per-I
suns to commit their slaves to prison in the public work.
houses of the island, without the warrant of a Justice of
the Puce, and the preceding Section (the 36th) enables
the gaoler, as well as the owner, to inflict punishment,
by whipping in prison, without trial. It is difficult to
perceive the necessity for such an extension of domestic
authority, and if unnecessary, it is plainly objectionable.',
The fine of 10/. for inflicting repeated punishments
for .the same offence QM scarcely be incurred in any
case, since no record is to be kept ascertaining the
grounds of any particular punishment, and the party
accrued may impute to his slave whatever offences ht
mg think proper, without the necessity of proving
them. The fioe,on a workhouse keeper inflicting an'
eXeeiatiVe number of lashes is 101. a punishment which
may, in some oases, be entirely .disproportionate to so
serious an offence.
The complaint which the slave is authorised to make
before any three. Magistrates, would not, I should fear,
be a very effectual means of redrew. As .they must
always be three Proprietors of the same parish, there is
a manifest danger of the influence of local partialities.'
As groundless complaint is to be punished, it is
to be feared that many well-founded complaints will
rombe.prefured. The more failure of evidence in sup•
of a complaint is surely not enough to justify the
of —the patty complaining. The owner