, 1866-10-30

again came before Parliament with his grievance, his policy was changed.
lie had now to demonstrate the cheapnesS of slave labor as compared
with the extravagant cost of free labor; and it is curious and amusing to
compare the statements before the Commons Committee of the same
men who sought in 1881 to place slave labor at the highest, and in 1887 at
the lowest possible figures, and to note their glaring inconsistencies.
In proper historical order, emancipation was the third grievance Of
which the planter complained, and over this he brooded for many years.
He did not hesitate to ascribe all his mBortunes to this, the latest act of
injustice, carried through the British Parliament in a moment Of hasty
enthusiasm, and made a law without the consent or advice, and against
the interests of those whom it most deeply and most vitality concerned.
The act WelEnigh produced as great a political as it did a social revolu-
ton in the islands; and it may naturally be supposed that many years
would elapse before the planter would become reconcied to the change.
Yet he did become recOncned he believes now that the system under
which his estate is worked is cheaper and more profitable to himself than
that of the old regime. With what reason | shall hereafter have occa-
sion to show but | assert, without the fear of single contradiction,
that no Barbadian planter would hesitate in 1859 to select free labor in
preference to slave labor, as in his belief the more economical system of
fabric of barbaric times, Monopoly was swept away, the West India
proprietary once more lifted their voice in complaint. "What," said
they to the British people, "ater all your professions of philanthropy,
are you going to admit slavegrOwn sugar on a par With treegroWn
sugar. are you going to place a premium on slavery after you have
crippled your own colonies with abolition g" But alas for the selfish
ness of human nature, the British of to-day are a practical people; and,
whatever the philanthropy of their fathers may have been, or whatever
their own may still be, they are determined to have their sugar at the
lowest possible figure. They want to place this emancipation bugbear
upon a broader basis than the one on which it has hitherto stood. They
no longer favor their pet scheme, but have left tit to fight its own battle
with slave labor, and whatever be the result they will be the gamers.
The argument of the planter that free trade in sugar places a premium
upon slavery is certainly a home-thrust for the Aboltionist, who con-
tends that this question of emancipation should only be considered from
a moral point of view. But it is like all other pleads for relief advanced
by the West India proprietary. They have represented themselves as
the victims of profound distress under the slavetrade, under slavery, and
under emancipation, emitting only to state that this distress was aggra-
waited, if not caused, by their own extravaganza, and by the monstrous
debts with which their estates were heavily burdened.
IF the planters admit as they enthusiastically do, that free labor is
cheaper than slave labor, they do not agree that, under the foreign system,
the necessary force can be a sreadly and as regularly obtained as under the
latter. This, infact,is thegreat grievance of thepresent day-not Of Barba.