COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
WEST INDIA PARTY DISINGENUOUSLY TREATED.
The West India Question is gradually narrowing to a point. There seems now to be little difference of opinion in regard to all safe and practicable measures tending to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, though the time and manner of their adoption may be dependent upon local considerations.
The question of emancipation, or that measure commonly designated Compulsory Manumission, alone remains at issue. The paramount importance of this clause, and the alarm felt in every West India colony at the threat of government to enforce its adoption, has caused the proceedings of the colonial department to be closely scrutinized, and it has in a variety of publications been charged with precipitation.
A pamphlet has lately appeared in vindication, under the title of “Remarks on an Address to the Members of the New Parliament, on the Proceedingsof the Colonial Department with respect to the West India Question.” It is avowedly “written by a Member of the late Parliament,” and bears internal evidence of being the production of a gentleman connected with the Colonial Office.
This pamphlet calls for a reply, for two reasons: First, because the writer indulges in recrimination, and brings accusations against the West India body, which, if passed unnoticed, might produce a very erroneous impression on the minds of the moderate and disinterested portion of the legislature.
Secondly, because the writer discusses the compulsory manumission clause, and acquaints us with the nature and strength of the reasoning employed by government to justify the adoption of that measure.
The general tone of the publication will create much surprise, and in one respect it will be of service, in making known the true relations and influence of the contending parties. It has been asserted by the anti-colonial advocates, and believed by a large portion of the community, that the West Indians possessed great influence with government, by means of which their cause was powerfully strengthened.
If the well-informed portion of the public could once have entertained this belief, their error must appear manifest on a perusal of the pamphlet in question. The writer expresses himself very unceremoniouslytowards those of the West India body, who were members of the last parliament; and his tone might lead one to conclude that he thinks them not worth conciliation. He seems to justify his asperity, by complaining that the colonial department is improperly singled out for attack in regard to those proceedings which the colonial interests do not approve. Now he must be aware that, constitutionally speaking,responsibilitypeculiarly attaches to that officer of the crown from whose department particular actsemanate. If important measures affecting the colonies are carried into effect, while there is reason to believe that the Secretary of State for that department is in possession of despatches, official reports, or other information showing their inexpediency, he will be chiefly looked to for the consequences; because it is conceived to be his immediate duty to give full explanation of the details, both to his colleagues and to parliament, and not to incur responsibility for measures he could not conscientiously approve. These are rather the sentiments of the British nation than of any individual party.
It cannot, therefore, be invidious to canvass freely the acts of that particular department. It is the obvious and the regular course where grievances are felt; and all our ideas of public principle warrant a belief, that when such grievances are fairlystated, every officer of the crown to whose department they referred, so far from feeling indignant at their exposition, would be anxious to extend his protection, in order to have them promptly redressed.
Thus viewing the case, our advocate of the colonial department cannot mistake the tendency or application of any of the comments contained in this publication; and he will be aware that a fair spirit of argument alone influences an examination of his positions, and of the judgment evinced in the manner and tone with which he has maintained them.
This writer endeavours to defend government, by charging the West Indians with inconsistency. This mode of argument, so frequently resorted to in political warfare, in nine cases out of ten indicates a feeble cause. It can surely never be too late to correct a principle radically wrong.
But let us examine the charge.
It is contended, that compulsory manumission was clearly laid down in the proceedings of parliament in March, 1824; that it was heard by the West India members without opposition, which was an implied acquiescence; and that if they now turn round to oppose it, they must have been “the most ignorant, incautious, and imbecile body of men who ever were got together to represent an interest.”
It was well known to the writer of this sentence, that the West India members were unanimously opposed to compulsory manumission; and it may be added, that a charge, couched in such language as this, could not have been expected from such a quarter. It may be true, that the West India members did not appeal to the House so early or so often as the threatened injustice may have demanded. But is this difficult to account for? When West India members have come forward to state their case, have we not seen it retorted upon them in the widely-disseminated publications of the anti-colonial party, in terms of the utmost coarseness: “He is a slave-driver: what attention or confidence is due to the statement of such a character?”
The West India members are indeed in a dilemma: if they speak, they run the risk of being abused—if silent, they are to be held parties to all the acts of precipitation and folly which may take place in colonial government.
It would be unnecessary to touch upon this point, did not one remark pre-eminently suggest itself for grave consideration. Throughout this pamphlet we have the defending of parties, clashing of interests, and such terms; just as if the “Saints” and the West Indians were to fight the battle betwixt them, and whichever proved the most cunning, or the most persevering, would carry their point. And is this the language an apologist of government thinks it necessary to maintain? Can he haveforgotten the grounds on which the West Indians were induced to commit their cause to the care of government? It was to stop useless or violent discussion. It proceeded from the principle, that if one party declaimed about alleged oppression of the negroes, and the other about their property, the safety of the colonies was the immediate province of ministers; that, as public servants, it was their sacred duty to uphold all the possessions of the crown; and that, in watching over their welfare, they equally protected the property of the colonists.
Though this consideration influenced the conduct of many West India members, still it is very erroneous to assert, that no explicit opposition was made to compulsory manumission at the very outset. It is asserted that it passed without animadversion, “except in a speechof the present Lord Seaford (Mr. C. R. Ellis), made on the day on which Mr. Canning uttered his celebrated commentary on its enactments.” One would think that dissent could not well be more clearly avowed than from the lips of the Chairman of the West India body. In point of fact, sufficient opposition, consistently with the respect which was shown to government, was evinced, to prove that the measure of compulsory manumission was from first to last peculiarly condemned by the colonial interests. When Mr. Canning first made known the intentions of government on this point, Lord Seaford explicitly denied being a party to them. When Mr. Broughambrought forward his last motion on the same subject, Lord Seaford again gave his reasons for resisting the measure. To those reasons, not a syllable in refutation was offered by Mr. Canning.
Besides these declarations of the chairman, every West India petition presented either to the king, to parliament, or to the Colonial office, explicitly set forth similar sentiments. The agents for the colonies, the merchants and mortgagees, early felt alarm; and in a petition from these last, presented on the 26th April, 1826, to the Lords by Lord Redesdale, and to the Commons by Mr. Baring, it was stated, “That until it shall be proved, that free negroes will work for hire, the process of compulsory emancipation cannot even be experimentally commenced, upon a West India estate, with justice to the various parties holding legal claims upon the property.”
Surely nothing could be more explicit than this, to convey the opinion of the parties most deeply interested in the question. But the hardy assertion of the writer we have quoted, calls for still further explanation. This writer must know, that in every interview or communication with the Colonial office, those of the West India body, to whose opinions most weight was likely to be attached, were loud and strenuous in their entreaties for forbearance. They stated, that the government had not given sufficient examination to the case; that they wereignorant of many important local circumstances that those ought all first to be carefully and fully investigated before a measure of vital importance was enforced; and that, in short, the government were already getting into difficulties, and if they proceeded further they would get more deeply involved, and might find it unpleasant, if not impossible, to extricate themselves.
To attempt, therefore, to criminate the West India party, if opposition be now manifested, is not consistent with that impartiality which we have a right to expect from a member of the legislature; still less does it indicate the manly candour presumed to influence the conduct of an officer of His Majesty’s government.
It is argued, again, that a general declaration of dissent was not sufficient. The Order in Council for Trinidad contained four clauses, showing how compulsory manumission was to be carried into execution. That Order was uniformly described as the model for the rest of the colonies; and it was the duty of the West India party, in their subsequent proceedings, to move for the rescission of those clauses, if they entertained objections to them as a model.
Two reasons may be assigned why the colonists deemed it unnecessary to express their disapproval of the Trinidad order. First, the tenure on which property was held in the British colonies differedfrom that of the Spanish colony of Trinidad. Secondly, it was notorious, that various portions of that order had to be repeatedly sent home for explanation and remodelling. Was there, then, fair reason to believe, that every clause contained in the original order would be enforced upon the other colonies, while it was yet doubtful if they would be finally confirmed even in the colony for which the order had been originally framed?
Time was afforded the government for reflection. It was presumed, that they would learn, by experience, the difficulty occasioned by legislating precipitately for distant settlements. This line of conduct was dictated by respect for the government. Had the West India body in England come forward in a bolder manner than they had done to resist the determination avowed by the Colonial Secretary of State, how would they have been met? They would have been told by the very same parties who are now wilfully misinterpreting their quiescence—“You are exciting the colonial assemblies to needless opposition—your violence will engender contumacy in its worst form—remain silent till you know what is their decision.”
Such reflections undoubtedly did actuate them; but now, when opposition to compulsory manumission is known to be unanimous throughout the colonies which possess legislatures, the West Indiabody in England, since repeated warnings and admonitions have been vain, do but consistently follow them up by appealing in a determined manner to parliament, and to the British nation, against the threatened intentions of government to enforce its enactment.
All the apologists of the measure seem, in their very tone, to be aware of the great degree of responsibility to be incurred in carrying it into effect; and hence there is a laboured attempt to show, that it is strictly conformable with the first proceedings of parliament, and with the resolutions of 1823. The West Indians are told, “in addition to your ignorance and imbecility, there will be the charge of shameful inconsistency to bring against you, if you now oppose our measures. You concurred unanimously in Mr. Canning’s resolutions; compulsory manumission is distinctly contemplated by those resolutions; and can you now propose to retract the assent given to them by your former votes.”
The West India members had little right to expect that such an accusation would ever be brought against them. In every stage of the proceedings, the whisper was incessantly reiterated in the ear of His Majesty’s ministers—“Adhere honestly to your own resolutions—for the sake of justice we call upon you, not to court a vulgar and transient popularity at our expense!”
And why was it that the resolutions were thus implicitly relied on? Not from any opinion that declarations of separate branches of the legislature could affect the rights of individuals resting on the statute-laws of the realm, but, because the parliamentary resolution contained a principle of cautious and practical legislation, and authorised the belief that, at each stage of procedure, careful examination and scrutiny would precede the adoption of measures which could be alleged, by any party concerned, to infringe their rights or interests.
When, subsequently, statements were made in the House of Commons, that government was departing from this principle, in enforcing compulsory manumission, neither Mr. Canning, nor Mr. Wilmot Horton, thought proper openly to attempt an explicit refutation.
What is the commentary? Matters are now becoming more critical, and the Executive resort to the plea of acting only upon the declared will of the legislature in their justification. Let us give them every advantage. Let us discuss the propriety of compulsory manumission, as it agrees with the resolutions of parliament; and if we succeed in our endeavours, we shall command the more attention, from meeting our antagonists on the ground they have themselves selected.