Chapter II.
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF PARLIAMENT.
The first of these often-quoted Resolutions declares, “That it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures forAMELIORATINGthe condition of the slave population in His Majesty’s colonies.”
It was to facilitate the accomplishment of this object of ameliorationalone, that many respectable West India planters in England gave their sanction to the resolution; and it is proper here to state, that their interference and acquiescence was by no means of that sweeping character claimed for it by Earl Bathurst in his despatches to the colonies. They explicitly declared, that in none of their proceedings had they the intention of imposing restraints or difficulties upon the colonial legislatures.
The Second Resolution is, “That through a determined and persevering, but at the same time judicious and temperate, enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to a progressive improvement in the character of the slave population, such as mayPREPAREthem for a participation in those civil rights and privilegeswhich are enjoyed by other classes of His Majesty’s subjects.”
This resolution is the one which the writer, who has undertaken to illustrate the views of government, quotes as decisive of the case. He says, the object was “‘to adopt,’—aye, not only ‘to adopt,’ but ‘enforce’ such measures ‘in a determined and persevering, though at the same time judicious and temperate manner,’ as would effect,—what purpose?—the mitigation of the evils of slavery?—as would remove the odious imputation of inhumanity adhering to the West Indian planters, so generally prevalent at that time throughout England, whether true or false?No: to enforce such measures as might ‘prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of His Majesty’s subjects.’”
The writer here deems contingent emancipation to be broadly and unequivocally provided, and in a very triumphant tone, he adds, “What! was the intellect of the West Indian members of the House of Commons who were present on that day, so obtuse, that they could not understand the meaning of those words?”
Perhaps not, to answer the ideas of this writer; but it is to be hoped that the case will be different with the legislature at large. It is surely quite apparent, that if by this Resolution any legislativemeasure for effecting emancipation had been contemplated, the term should be,“ADMITthem to a participation in civil rights.”
The colonial advocate argues throughout upon this most erroneous assumption. The word “prepare” cannot here admit of two meanings; it is precise, definite, and strictly accordant with the desideratum avowed in the first resolution. It was not possible to convey in a more explicit manner the obvious fact, that the slavesare not as yet in a state to receive freedom. By “preparing them,” it was understood that they had a probation to go through; that their condition had to be materially changed and improved; that, in fine, the fruits of amelioration must have been made visible before further measures were adopted. May we not ask whether this Second Resolution be not as consistently applicable to the progress whichvoluntarymanumissions are making towards an extinction of slavery, as to any measure of compulsory manumission? In the one case, as in the other, is it not expedient to adopt such measures of amelioration, as may effect a progressive improvement in the character of the slave population, andPREPAREthem for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of His Majesty’s subjects?
What, let us demand, was the object of all the powerful and extensive means taken to securemoral and religious instruction—of the appointment of the bishops and regular clergy? What was it but to enable the negroes to appreciate correctly the possession of civil privileges, in order that hereafter we might have civilized beings, and not barbarians, living in freedom in our colonies?
But if there could be the least ground for misinterpretation in the Second, it must be speedily removed by attending to the Third Resolution: “That this House is anxious for the accomplishment of this purpose at the earliest period that shall be compatible with the well-being of the slaves themselves, with the safety of the colonies, and with a fair and equitable consideration of the interests of private property.”
Here are laid down certain conditions which must be complied with in whatever new measures are introduced. These conditions constitute the strong reliance of the colonists for protection, since the letter of them definitely confirms what appears to be the spirit of the two preceding Resolutions.
It may be proper to add that, besides the direct declaration of these Resolutions, we have them corroborated by the collateral authority of ministers. In the debate in 1823, Mr. Canning not only made no sort of allusion to compulsory manumission, but that project does not appear to have been even thought of. The mode of emancipation contended for by the anti-colonial party had for itsobject the freedom of the rising generation of negroes; but Mr. Canning both resisted this, and appeared anxious to check any notion which might be entertained, that plans for emancipation of any kind were then in contemplation.
As a further and conclusive proof that compulsory manumission was not, even by ministers themselves, deemed to be implied in the Resolutions proposed by Mr. Canning, but that it was an after-thought of their own, we have the direct and decisive testimony of Lord Bathurst.
In his Lordship’s circular despatch to the Governors of Colonies having local legislatures, dated 9th July, 1823, and consequently near two months after these Resolutions were passed, and when it is presumed that the executive government had determined on the details of such measures as were to be adopted in furtherance of those Resolutions, Lord Bathurst gives a comprehensive sketch of the various amendments required in the colonial laws.
“The next subject,” says his Lordship, “to which I must draw your attention, is the manumission of slaves.”
After expressing his satisfaction, that the practice of impeding manumission by the exaction of a heavy fine or tax has been discontinued, his Lordship anticipates a further facilitation to manumissions, by the concurrence of each colonial legislature in the final repeal of all such charges, includingall official fees. His Lordship thus appears to consider theexpenseof obtaining emancipation, as the chief obstacle which it was incumbent upon the colonial legislatures to remove.
He then proceeds to specify all the remaining obstacles which he thinks ought to be removed.
“The first obstacle to manumission arises from the apprehension of this being resorted to by the owner for the purpose of relieving himself from the burden of maintaining infirm or aged slaves.—A second obstacle to manumission seems to arise from a presumed legal difficulty, in regard to the incapability of a slave to make contracts.—A third, and much more serious obstacle arises out of the legal limitations to property in slaves; as in cases of entail, family-settlement, or mortgage.—A difficulty analogous to this arises out of doubtful or disputable titles.”
How were these difficulties to be obviated? By thecompulsoryenactments of the Trinidad order in council? No such thing. They were not even contemplated.
“To remove,” says his Lordship, “all the preceding obstacles to manumission, you will therefore propose to the legislature of your colony to pass a law to the following effect:—Permanent commissioners should be appointed, who (on application being made by, or on behalf of, any slave,with his master’s consent) should ascertainthe names,” &c. &c. Parl. Pap.Sess.1824. p. 10.
This passage attracted much attention in the colonies. The Court of Policy in Demerara, in stating, at a subsequent period, that it could not enact compulsory manumission, since “It had not the right to invade the property of its fellow-colonists, by admitting that they can in any manner be deprived of it contrary to the laws by which it is secured to them,” remarked—“This principle is laid down in Earl Bathurst’s letter of the 9th July, 1823, whereinthe consent of the masteris distinctly coupled with the application to be made by or on the behalf of a slave for freedom.”
This reply of the court of policy of Demerara is copied into a pamphlet, entitled, “The West India Question practically considered,” with which performance the Colonial Department may possibly be acquainted. It has the important words, “consent of the master,” printed as above in italics, as if to remind the government more forcibly of its own previous statement.
After this exposition, may we not venture to ask, who most deserves the reprobation of disinterested members of the legislature? The ministerial advocate, who asserts that compulsory manumission was avowed from the outset, or the West Indian who can produce Lord Bathurst’s own words to prove the contrary?
It must have been between July, 1823, and March, 1824, that the innovation was devised. But even at the latter period its bearings were not developed.
Few members of the House of Commons can have forgotten Mr. Canning’s luminous oration on this occasion, when he described the evil consequences of precipitation, and the difficulties which opposed themselves to the termination of a state like that of slavery.
It is not a little singular, that the same passage which the apologist of the Colonial office quotes from this speech as proving that emancipation was then contemplated, may, with far more effect, be turned against him. Adverting to the other measures of amelioration, Mr. Canning, on the 16th March, 1824, observed: “By this process, and by these degrees, may the slave be gradually fitted for the last grand consummation of benefit, the power of acquiring his freedom.”
The term here used,FITTED FOR, is in strict consonance with the wordPREPARE, employed by Mr. Canning in the outset; and though he now, for the first time, notices Compulsory Manumission, he passes it over in a very cursory manner, either as if anxious to avoid discussion, or desirous of concealing its importance. An ordinary observer, on reading the more recent despatches sent out to thecolonies, in which the views of government were stated, would imagine that, in place of the guarded expressions originally used, terms impelling to quicker and more extensive proceedings had since been substituted.
Consistency is a delicate word to political ears. Lest any misunderstanding should arise, or any member of the legislature should conceive himself shackled by former votes, it was necessary to explain fully to which side the charge attaches of having abandoned former principles.
Having therefore removed that injurious bias which it appears to be the object of the advocate of the Colonial Department to raise against the West Indians, on the ground of inconsistency, it now becomes desirable to discuss the principle of compulsory manumission on its own merits.
It will be found that the opposition of the West Indians is not directed against an imaginary evil; that opposition now is very different from those minor objections locally entertained against particular plans of amelioration; and that, above all, if government, with a view of courting popular favour, have innovated upon their original understanding with the West Indian party, they have neither chosen the most benevolent nor the wisest mode to accomplish their own end of terminating slavery.
We propose to pursue the examination upon thegrounds marked out by the Parliamentary Resolutions already quoted, in the order in which the importance of the several heads may be presumed to receive attention from a legislative assembly.
1. Justice, as regards the right of property.
2. Humanity, as regards the well-being of the negroes.
3. Sound Policy, as regards the safety of the Colonies.