The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-05-21 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD.

those difficulties. (Hear.) If Ministers were left loaded
with them, it would be no advantage to the West India pro-
prietor. (Hear, hear, hear.) He was well aware they de-
served all they had brought upon themselves, yet they could not
suffer without the West India proprietors suffering also. ( Hear.)
When he spoke of the plan he could not help using hard words,
and the meeting should be aware that Ministers were reckless
men, and they might, if not resisted, determine to go for-
ward to the utter ruin of the proprietors. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WGREGOR, of Glasgow, wished for a committee to be
appointed, with whom the outports could communicate. Go-
vernment would not by that means be relieved of its responsi-
bility. In common sense they must make compensation for pro-
perty taken away. He thought there could not be a more com-
petent committee than the last.
Mr. Moss, of Liverpool, was anxious for the appointment of
a committee.

Mr. BROWN (agent for one of the colonies) said he differed
from the other agents, and was decidedly in favour of a com-
mittee. At all the meetings of the West India body angry dis-
cussions were sure to arise. (Cries of No, no.)
Mr. BaowN.—Why we have had an instance of it to-day in
an Hon. Baronet.

Sir A. GRANT—I did not feel the least angry; 1 only talked
in a loud tone of voice. (Laughter.)
Mr. BROWN then proceeded to argue in favour of a com-
mittee.

Sir A. Grant, Mr. Bernal, Mr. Hodson, and Mr. Carrington,
proposed amendments; and after a protracted and desultory
discussion, a resolution was at length put, to the effect that
" the five gentlemen who had before been deputed to commu-
nicate with the Government on the part of the West India
body, should be appointed as a committe, to co-operate with the
deputies from the out-ports, with power to add to their numbers,
for the purpose of procuring an immediate final settlement of
the question of negro slavery, according to the letter and spirit
of the resolution of the House of Commons, in the year 1823,
and consistently with the interests of the slaves themselves, and
with the safety of the colonies, without violating the rights of
property."
'I he resolution was carried by acclamation, and with only
three dissentients—Mr. Carrington, Mr. Myers, and Mr. Cun-
ningham, jun.

Sir ALEXANDER GRANT was glad that, even at that late hour,
the meeting had at length come to the point when the main
business of the day might be ventured upon. He proposed an
address to the King, to the effect that " The petitioners ap-
proached his Majesty in this period of alarm and dismay
with a full confidence in his paternal feelings; and that he
would protect all classes of his subjects, the weakest as well as
the most powerful. That the petitioners were threatened with
the confiscation of their property in their slaves, of which the
consequence would., be to deprive the planters of the means of
cultivating their estates, and to reduce them and all those who
had any interest in their claims to destruction. That they were
confidently assured that such injustice, even to a body so weak
as the petitioners, would not receieve the royal sanctbn, unless
accompanied by a full, fair, and equitable compenSation ; that
they conceived that if the legislature be of opinion that, in the
execution of a high moral duty, and attainment of a great pub-
lic object, to interfere with the property of the petitioners, they
were bound, as in every legislative interference with the rights
of property, to offer a compensation for the surrender, which
could not equitably be enforced without the consent of the pro-
prietors; the petitioners would not oppose any equitable mea-
sure for the attainment of the objects contemplated by the
Government in respect to colonial slavery; but they could not
consent to any measure which did not include a just compensa-
tion for the surrender of that which was undeniably their right-
ful and legal property. They relied with confidence upon the
protection of the only one of our kings who had witnessed him-
self the loyalty of his subjects in the \Vest Indies, and who was
aware, from his own personal observation and experience, of
the falsehood of the calumnies which were adduced in support
of the measures of injustice and confiscation with which they
were threatened." (Hear, hear, hear.)

Mr. BAR RETT, Speaker of the House of Assembly of Jamaica,
seconded the motion for the address read by Sir A. Grant.

Lord COMBERMERE was requested to present the address,
which, he said, he would willingly undertake to do, and to urge
upon his Majesty the claims of the petitioners upon the royal
protection from the invasion of their property with which they
were threatened.

Mr. BARRETT, in rising to move a petition to the same effect
as the address, was desirous to take the present opportunity of
contradicting, but without any-intention of offence, the mis-
statements made, in the House of Commons, by Mr. Secretary
Stanley, in bringing before Parliament the propositions of the
Government for the abolition of slavery. Had all the great
powers concurred in the abolition of the slave trade, Cuba, Ben-
gal, and the Mauritius, would not have produced more sugar
than they did now. At the time slavery was established, Eng-
land alone was interested in the abolition. At this time slavery
was in existence with more violence than at any other period.
Out of 136 ships that had left the coast of Africa, a' great num-
ber had left with cargoes of human beings. This was the sys-
tem that Mr. Buxton and his party should apply themselves to.
This trade was illegal; they could not call the West India
slaves not legal property, but foolish people had raised such
clamour that the rum of the West India colonies must be com-
pleted. He felt confident that the slave trade would be carried
on between Jamaica and Cuba, which was only a short distance
off, and constant irruptions would be made on Jamaica to carry
off the slaves. In Brazil and the northern states of America
there were vast numbers of slaves; in the latter not less than
two millions. He did not think America would be very much
obliged for the manner in which Mr. Stanley had spoken of
slavery. He contended that the statements made by the Colo-
nial secretary in reference to the colonial legislatures were not
founded in fact, and said Mr. Stanley had attempted to make
out a case that the colonial legislatures had not carried into
effect the resolutions of Parliament, and for this " contumely,"
as he called it, that more active measures must be adopted to
amend the condition of the slaves. If it could be shown that
the colonial legislatures had taken steps to carry the resolutions
into effect, that part of Mr. Stanley's speech must , fall to the
ground. In 182-1 the resolutions were received in the colonies.
Mr. Stanley said all the colonies disdainfully refused to carry
the resolutions into effect till 1826. One year after the resolu-
tions had been received in Jamaica, an official despatch had
been sent by that legislature to Lord Bathurst, in which they
stated that two important acts had been passed considerably
ameliorating the condition of the slaves. In another despatch,
sent out to the colonial legislature, it was stated that measures
should be adopted for the amelioration of the condition of the
slaves, and two acts were passed for the extinction of the Sun-
day market. Lord Manchester, in his dispatch to the Colonial
Secretary, stated his conviction that the colonial legislature
would from time to time do all in their power to improve the
condition of the slaves, but the noble duke expressed his opi-
nion that the minds of the slaves were not yet in that state to
qualify them for freedom, as they had not given up their desire
for mischief. The honourable gentleman proceeded to detail
the acts passed by the colonial legislature to amend the condi-
tion of the slaves. In the year 1826, eight bills were sent. from
the colonial office, said Mr. Stanley in his speech, having for
their object the abolition of slavery, not one of which, he stated,
had received consideration from the colonial legislatures. What
was the fact ? Had Mr. Stanley told a plain unvarnished tale
of the proceedings of the colonial legislatures, , he would not
have given that false and coloured statement that had been pub.
lished to the world. (Hear.) Mr. Stanley laid great stress
on those bills not being passed, but Earl Bathurst, in sending
them out exposed the difficulty there was in framing any bills
that could be carried into effect consistently with the laws and
usages in the colonies. These bills were scut down by the
Duke of Manchester to the colonial legislature, which- took
them into consideration, and, in speaking of them, the noble
duke said the alterations were valuable additions to the inten-
tions of Government. The, colonial legislature passed a bill, in
the year 1826, even combining the sectarian clauses so strongly
objected to previously. The bill of the governor was, however,
withheld, because it contained clauses relative to religion. The
honourable gentleman went on to detail the correspondence be-
tween Lord Belmore and Sir G. Murray, upon the-subject of
the amelioration of the condition of the slaves. So late as
1831, Lord Goderich had written to Lind 13ehnore stating the
pleasure felt by his Majesty by the passing of the act now in ex-
istence iu Jamaica, which tended to ameliorate the condition of
the slaves, and to promote the final extinction of slavery. The
colonial legislatures had been commended for their treasures in
respect to the bills which had come before the House of Assem-
bly, in the shape of eight propositions. The colonial le-
gislatures had been called upon, first, for the abolition of
the Sunday markets, and the Assembly passed a bill putting
down the Sunday markets after ten o'clock in the morning.
The second proposition called upon the legislature to ad-
mit slave evidence. The Assembly had passed a law to this
effect, and had only exempted such evidence as would affect
the life of a white man. The third proposition was that slave
marriages should be sanctioned. The proposed machinery of
the Colonial-office was got rid of by the Assembly, and mar-
riage between slaves was rendered legal, the sanction of the
master being alone sufficient. The next point was, the aboli-
tion ,of the tax on the manumission of slaves. Such tax had
been long before abolished, except as far as regards compulsory
manumission. The colonial legislature had not consented to
abolish a tax on compulsory manumission, as when a slave be-
came free he did not labour so actively as before. The next
proposition was that' slaves should not be separated from their