The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-01-22 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL STANDARD

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, SATURDAY, JAN. 19.

DIFFICULTIES OF EMANCIPATING SLAVES.
THORNLEY V. BYRNE,
Sir Edward Sugden stated that this was a petition beset with
greater difficulties than perhaps ever came under the conside
ration of a court of justice, and proved how often it was that
the most humane and kind intentions were lost on the object
of them. In the year 1816 Lord Crawford and Lindsey died,
and by his will bequeathed a tract of land in the Island of
Antigua to trustees, the profits of which were to accumulate
until I.'ebruary, 18.33, and then the whole of the slaves on his
lordship's estate were to receive their manumission, and the
money accumulated divided equally between them. His lord-
ship also further directed by his will, that the slaves who would
in 1833 be entitled to their freedom should be taught to read the
Bible, and treated with all the humanity that reason and justice
could dictate. These humane and benevolent intentions of the
testator it was now found impossible to carry into effect, and all
the flattering hopes of manumission were utterly hopeless.
The slaves at the present time were one hundred and thirty-
four in number, and from the depreciation of property and
other causes, the whole sum at the disposal of the trustees was
only £750. All and every offer to benefit the slaves had been
proposed, but they would listen to no terms, being completely
intoxicated at the idea of liberty. It had been suggested to
purchase land and form them into a colony, but this they
indignantly refused, declaring they would no longer live to-
Tether. Another insurmountable difficulty presented itself.
welve of the slaves, from old age, were incapable of labour,
and the laws of the island required that, when the owner of a
slave gave him his manumission, he (the owner) should deposit
£3OO, currency in the public treasury, as a guarantee for his
future support. Now, in the present case, there was no fund to
make this deposit from. In short, it was found impossible to
carry the intentions of the testator into effect, hence the present
application. Sir' Edward Sugden concluded his address, by
some general observations upon the difficulties attending the
question of negro slavery.
The Attorney-General, on behalf of the crown, wished to
leave the case entirely in the hands of the court.
The Lord Chancellor said, if counsel did not object, he
should wish, before giving any opinion, to advise with the
government on the subject.
Sir Edward Sugden would feel muck obliged to his lordship
so to do. This case must show to every thinking man the
difficulties attending the general question of the abolition of
slavery.
The Lord Chancellor.—l agree with you, Sir Edward, that
the present case suggests many and very serious reflections
regarding the question of slavery. I will advise with the
government.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MONDAY, Jan, 14.
LIBEL.

Captain Forbes brought an action against the Satirist news-
caper for the following alleged libel published on the 30th
September last.
Langford conversing with his man Friday (meaning the
Ilaintiff) on the'subject of the slave trade, enumerated several
nstances of superior endowments among the black population.
Yes,' observed Forbes, the history of Hayti affords ample
proof of that ; they are equal to us at least in intellectual
matters.' You know, Forbes, I fear, but little of history,'
remarked his Lordship; look into the history of England,
and you will there read an account of a black prince who was
the greatest soldier of his time.' "
It was contended for the plaintiff, that it was degrading to
call any subject of his Majesty " the man Friday :" but the
Judge held, that, as Friday was a very faithful, honest fellow,
it was certainly no libel to call a man by that name. Captain
Forbes also complained of .another paragraph in the same
paper, headed " Gambling Fracas," in which it was said that
" Mr. Hugh, calling himself Captain Forbes, had quarrelled
at a gambling-house, with a Mr. Tarlton—that a meeting was
arranged, to come off at Putney Heath—that the adverse
parties were in attendance at the time appointed, but that
neither the plaintiff nor his second appeared upon the ground."
But their Lordships decided that it was no libel to charge a
man with neglecting to keep ,an illegal appointment, and that
ail gambling was not illegal, The plaintiff, therefore, was
beaten upon both counts.