Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1841-12-23


believes il is, that property emphacay the creature
Of Law; OF municipal law, and that that only proper.
which the law makes does II not FOLLOW tina, each
State must alone possess the right TO decide the ques.
ton for ITSELF and that the consequence is that property
varies in different Countries Now in all counre.
ancient or modern, where slavery has existed was II
heard Of that those who were slaves, IL
be regarded property or thai any distinction was
cognzed under the law of nations between property N
persons, and property things: On the contrary, has
not the RICH, of property iii slaves been acknowledged
by most of the civilized nations Of the globe, and
cured by all the projections Of law IL tins be not So
and slaves are not property, what are they When ];
may be asked, the time oil the Roman law, which
has Justly been regarded the Code raioRs Scygia
has IT been doubted that the slave property
DO the laws Of nations in treating vi the subject II
property make an exception in favor OF the right Of dis
eliminating between persons and things: The question
then is not, what the laws Of Great Britain may be a
10 property III slaves, but what the laws Of the
countries in which the slave and the owner reside.
The right OF nation to decide for another what
property Of modern date, and has been asserted 1t
is believed BY no other nation than that Of Grea, Bri.
tain. Does she expect, that any Independent Power
will submit 10 doctrine involving the cstravagant sup
position Of eding 10 any one nation the right, not
ly 10 decide for ITSELF but for others, the question Of
What is, or what is not property When where has
such doctrine before been asserted, In what
written or received authority will II BE- found: When
was it, from the days of Queen Elizabeth down, that
such claim by any other nation would not have been
regarded by Great Britain subversive Of the prnc
plies of international law and direct violation Of her
own rights OF sovereignty The answer will be found
in her history. Is she then justified in asserting
a doctrine, which, besides beng against the established
principles of public law, and the rights Of other nations,
obnoxious 10 all those principles recognised and
praciised by her III her intercourse with other nations
for than two centuries without opposition
sure, and by universal consent:
Is il (as the Undersigned has heretofore taken occa
ask for that nation within whose domnions sa.
very has existed for centuries, and during whose do
mon over the United States, the existing institutions
of domestic slavery had their origin: Is il Tor that
ton who has been the greatest slave holder earth
and from whose laws and practices lin the language II
lie fits former mnsters) slavery itself has sprung,
that the doctrine IS now 10 be maintained, that there
cnn be no right of property IN persons: The question
Of property slaves which no nation has The
right Of determining for another II is one, certainly
which the United States will never consider even cFcn
for discussion much less the decision Of foreign Co
vernment.
Whatever, therefore, the laws Of her Alajesiy's Go.
yernmen. on the subject of slavery may be, and Hhc
ter il has been abolished and ceased 10 exist through
Great Britain, (Which, however IS not admitted az
10 her West India Coonies they can have no niu
ence in the decision OF the present question The
slaves on board the "Encrprze the property ot
citizens of the U. S and IN the possession OF Their
when seized and liberated. They were -
much under the protection OF the nag OF the T. ),
when forced by distress and shpwrcck into the waters
and jurisdiction of Great Britain, if they had been
upon the ocean, within the limits OF the Y. ,
They lost, therefore, OF their rights whilst within
foreign jurisdiction and their seizure from the Gus
tody OF their owners and subsequent Liberation was =
violation of the rights and sovereignty Of the I. ,.
the principles Of public law, and all the primo Piles which
regulate the intercourse between independent and
friendly nations.
The inquiry then arises, upon what ground has the
claim in the OF the "Enerprlse, been rejected,
and those of the "Comet and Encomium," admitted
to be well founded II is conceded by his l.ordshp,
that they upon what is assumed 10 have been the
4 a. Tina. 4 tIn
rival OF those vessels in the Bahamas. In the two
first cases of the "Comet and Encomum, compensa-
ton allowed, because the West India Act OF Ean
cpaton had not passed, and the relation between
owner and slave had not been dissolved and as the
law acknowledged the rights Of British subj ecs in their
slaves in the colonies would have been unjust TO deny
to foreigner in possession Of his slaves the same
rights. Compensation was therefore dccreed But N
the of the "Enerprlse it is refused, because she
arrived after the passage of the law of 1888 by which
asserted, that slavery, every form, beng abo
lshed in the colonies the slaves became at et-
tied freedom, and the rights Of the ceased
And hence his Lordshp, dissenting from the opinion
expressed by the Undersigned in former note, as 10
character and condition OF the apprentices IN the
West Indies, under the act of lo; again asserts, that
slavery was wholi,. -L~I;~i,oI aud that,
TINS foundation alone, the decision Of her hlaestys
Government must be justified. Now protesting the
undersigned does, against the right of deciding this
claim, under the municipal laws of Great Britain, or
applying any system which she may adopt for the anne
Iteration or abolition Of slavery, within her dominions.
to the citizens of the United States, their property,
under circumstances like these he will YET, fer pur
poses of argument and illustrations proceed show,
that the grounds which have been assumed : the
basis of the present decision, illGsory and
founded.
With due submission then TO His lorlship, the un.
dersgned must again repeat, that SO far from Slavery
having been abolished IN the West Indies, il exists IN
essential and vital form in the present system Of
gro apprenticeship The grounds upon which this
opinion is expressed, matters of History. They
TO be found not only in the objects and provisions
Of the Act itself, but in the history of the Proceedings
and discussions which took place in Parliament, al the
time OF its passage on the part Of both the friends ana
opponents of the Law, 10 brief review of which the
Undersigned asks the attention Of His Lordshp
and that Of Her Majesty's Government.
In the first place, it was not intended BY the Act 10
change Immediately the state Of Slavery in the IVES,
India Colonies. The leading and avowed object of thc
friends of the law, was not, as Lord Pamerston has
supposed that OF immediate and unqualified Abolition
but the adoption of scheme Of gradual and progress.
slve amelloraton and emancipation. 1t with this
ylew that the measure not only proposed and sup.
ported by the Government, but finally passed In bot,
Houses Of Parliament, the friends and supporters oil
the law drclared-1ha the slaves Of the Colonies could
not be suddenly liberated, and raised from 4 state Of
slavery 10 Of freedom:hat the experience Of all
ages and nations furnished examples Of the imminent
dangers which attended all attempts TO change nj
the Political condition Of the abornp classes of rrea,
COMMUNICATIVE the prncp pie Of protracted period
essential 10 the welfare Of The slaves and that they
could not safely be placed Immediately in the situation
otireemen il was necessary, therefore, that the
whole number of slaves should be divided into classes
and continuing III The custody Of their owners, he
bound to serve as apprentices for gwen number Of
years and That the termination Of their bondage
be gradua when these apprenticeships ceased,
and not TIL then, would those who had been held rs
slaves be in full possession Of the rights and privileges
enjoyed by other classes Of Her Maesys subjects III
the Coonies-That it in this way alone, that they
could guard the Colonies and the negroes themselves
against the dangers Of boodshed and strife consequent
upon sudden changes from state Of slavery o..
freedom
In the House Of Lords the then Premier (-ord Grey
in supper, Of the scheme declared: "Ihnt lie con
f9nemptae 'ch0u an i"ere@sed dssree Of 4p'ehensioH
the possible danger mhirh mign arise from senins lie
sdres free at once, and hr.tore Gciiered By His
MJfMys Gorsrnmsn ttct such a pr"gr'ssire freefo'n
combining preparatory state 81 restricted iabor, r