when applied to the case of our West Indian islands, by establishing a
fact of a very different kind, viz. that the slaves in the West Indies
do much more work in a given time when _they work for themselves_, than
when _they work for their masters_. But how, it will be said, do you
prove, by establishing this fact, that it would be cheaper for our
planters to employ free men than slaves? I answer thus: I maintain that,
_while the slaves are working for themselves_, they are to be
considered, indeed that they are, _bonâ fide, free labourers_. In the
first place, they never have a driver with them on any of these
occasions; and, in the second place, _having all their earnings to
themselves_, they have that stimulus within them to excite industry,
which is only known _to free men_. What is it, I ask, which gives birth
to industry in any part of the world, seeing that labour is not
agreeable to man, but the stimulus arising from the hope of gain? What
makes an English labourer do more work in the day than a slave, but the
stimulus arising from the knowledge, that what he earns is _for himself
and not for another_? What, again, makes an English labourer do much
more work _by the piece_ than by _the day_, but the stimulus arising
from the knowledge that he may gain more by the former than by the
latter mode of work? Just so is the West Indian slave situated, when _he
is working for himself_, that is, when he knows _that what he earns is
for his own use_. He has then all the stimulus of a free man, and he is,
therefore, _during such work_ (though unhappily no longer) really, and
in effect, and to all intents and purposes, as much _a free labourer_ as
any person in any part of the globe. But if he be a free man, while he
is working for himself, and if in that capacity he does twice or thrice
more work than when he works for his master, it follows, that it would
be cheaper for his master to employ him as a free labourer, or that the
labour of free men in the West Indies would be cheaper than the labour
of slaves.
That West Indian slaves, when they work for themselves, do much more in
a given time than when they work for their masters, is a fact so
notorious in the West Indies, that no one who has been there would deny
it. Look at Long's History of Jamaica, The Privy Council Report,
Gaisford's Essay on the good Effects of the Abolition of the Slave
Trade, and other books. Let us hear also what Dr. Dickson, the editor
of Mr. Steele, and who resided so many years in Barbadoes, says on this
subject, for what he says is so admirably expressed that I cannot help
quoting it. "The planters," says he, "do not take the right way to make
human beings put forth their strength. They apply main force where they
should apply moral motives, and punishments alone where rewards should
be judiciously intermixed. They first beslave their poor people with
their cursed whip, and then stand and wonder at the tremour of their
nerves, and the laxity of their muscles. And yet, strange to tell,
_those very men affirm, and affirm truly_, that a slave will do more
work for himself _in an afternoon_ than he can be made to do for his
owner _in a whole day or more_!" And did not the whole Assembly of
Grenada, as we collect from the famous speech of Mr. Pitt on the Slave
Trade in 1791, affirm the same thing? "He (Mr. Pitt) would show," he
said, "the futility of the argument of his honourable friend. He (his
honourable friend) had himself admitted, that it was in the power of the
colonies to correct the various abuses by which the Negro population was
restrained. But they could not do this without _improving the condition
of their slaves_, without making them _approximate towards the rank of
citizens_, without giving them _some little interest in their labour_,
which would occasion them to work _with the energy of men_. But now the
Assembly of Grenada had themselves stated, that, _though_ the _Negroes
were allowed the afternoon of only one day in every week, they would do
as much work in that afternoon when employed for their own benefit, as
in the whole day when employed in their masters' service_. Now after
this confession the House might burn all his calculations relative to
the Negro population; for if this population had not quite reached the
desirable state which he had pointed out, this confession had proved
that further supplies were not wanted. A Negro, _if he worked for
himself, could do double work_. By an improvement then in the mode of
labour, the work in the islands could be doubled. But if so, what would
become of the argument of his honourable friend? for then only half the
number of the present labourers were necessary."
But the fact, that the slaves in the West Indies do much more work for
themselves in a given time than when they work for their masters, may be
established almost arithmetically, if we will take the trouble of
calculating from authentic documents which present themselves on the
subject. It is surprising, when we look into the evidence examined by
the House of Commons on the subject of the Slave Trade, to find how
little a West Indian slave really does, when he works for his master;
and this is confessed equally by the witnesses on both sides of the
question. One of them (Mr. Francklyn) says, that a labouring man could
not get his bread in Europe if he worked no harder than a Negro.
Another (Mr. Tobin), that no Negro works like a day-labourer in
England. Another (Sir John Dalling), that the general work of Negroes is
not to be called labour. A fourth (Dr. Jackson), that an English
labourer does three times as much work as a Negro in the West Indies.
Now how are these expressions to be reconciled with the common notions
in England of Negro labour? for "to work like a Negro" is a common
phrase, which is understood to convey the meaning, that the labour of
the Negroes is the most severe and intolerable that is known. One of the
witnesses, however, just mentioned explains the matter. "The hardship,"
says he, "of Negro field-labour is more in the _mode_ than in the
_quantity_ done. The slave, seeing no end of his labour, stands over the
work, and only throws the hoe to avoid the lash. He appears to work
without actually working." The truth is, that a Negro, having no
interest in his work while working for his master, will work only while
the whip is upon him. I can no where make out the clear net annual
earnings of a field Negro on a sugar plantation to come up to 8 l.
sterling. Now what does he earn in the course of a year when he is
working for himself? I dare not repeat what some of the witnesses for
the planters stated to the House of Commons, when representing the
enviable condition of the slaves in the West Indies; for this would be
to make him earn more for himself _in one day_ than for his master _in a
week_. Let us take then the lowest sum mentioned in the Book of
Evidence. This is stated to be 14d. sterling per week; and 14d.
sterling per week would make 3 l. sterling per year. But how many days
in the week does he work when he makes such annual earnings? The most
time, which any of the witnesses gives to a field slave for his own
private concerns, is every Sunday, and also every Saturday afternoon in
the week, besides three holidays in the year. But this is far from being
the general account. Many of them say that he has only Sunday to
himself; and others, that even Sunday is occasionally trespassed upon by
his master. It appears, also, that even where the afternoon is given
him, it is only out of crop-time. Now let us take into the account the
time lost by slaves in going backwards and forwards to their
provision-grounds; for though some of these are described as being only
a stone's throw from their huts, others are described as being one,
and two, and three, and even four miles off; and let us take into the
account also, that Sunday is, by the confession of all, the Negro market
day, on which alone they can dispose of their own produce, and that the
market itself may be from one to ten or fifteen miles from their homes,
and that they who go there cannot be working in their gardens at the
same time, and we shall find that there cannot be on an average more
than a clear three quarters of a day in the week, which they can call
their own, and in which they can work for themselves. But call it a
whole day, if you please, and you will find that the slave does for
himself in this one day more than a third of what he does for his master
in six, or that he works _more than three times harder_ when _he works
for himself_ than when _he works for his master_.
I have now shown, first by the evidence of Mr. Botham, and secondly by
the fact of Negroes earning more in a given time when they work in their
own gardens, than when they work in their master's service, that the old
maxim "of _its being cheaper to employ free men than slaves_," is true,
when applied to the _operations and demands of West Indian agriculture_.
But if it be cheaper to employ free men than slaves in the West Indies,
then they, who should emancipate their Negroes there, would _promote
their interest by so doing_. "But hold!" says an objector, "we allow
that their successors would be benefited, but not the _emancipators
themselves_. These would have a great sacrifice to make. Their slaves
are worth so much money at this moment; but they would lose all this
value, if they were to set them free." I reply, and indeed I have all
along affirmed, that it is not proposed to emancipate the slaves _at
once_, but to prepare them for emancipation _in a course of years_. Mr.
Steele did not make his slaves _entirely free_. They were _copyhold-bond
slaves_. They were still _his freehold property_: and they would, if he
had lived, have continued so for many years. They therefore, who should
emancipate, would lose nothing of the value of their slaves, so long as
they brought them only to the door of liberty, but did not allow them to
pass through it. But suppose they were to allow them to pass through it
and thus admit them to freedom, they would lose nothing by so doing; for
they would not admit them to freedom till _after a certain period of
years, during which_ I contend that the _value of every individual
slave_ would have been _reimbursed_ to them from _the increased income
of their estates_. Mr. Steele, as we have seen, _more than tripled_ the
value of his income during his experiment: I believe that he more than
quadrupled it; for he says, that he more than tripled it _besides
increasing his stock_, and _laying out large sums annually in adding
necessary works_, and _in repairs of the damage by the great hurricane_.
Suppose then a West India estate to yield at this moment a nett income
of 500 l. per annum, this income would be increased, according to Mr.
Steele's experience, to somewhere about 1700 l. per annum. Would not,
then, the surplus beyond the original 500 l., viz. 1200 l. per annum,
be sufficient to reimburse the proprietor in a few years for the value
of every slave which he had when he began his plan of emancipation? But
he would be reimbursed again, that is, (twice over on the whole for
every individual slave,) from a new source, viz. _the improved value of
his land_. It is a fact well known in the United States, that a certain
quantity of land, or farm, in full cultivation by free men, will fetch
twice more money than the same quantity of land, similarly
circumstanced, in full cultivation by slaves. Let us suppose now that
the slaves at present on any West Indian plantation are worth about as
much as the land with the buildings upon it, to which they are attached,
and that the land with the buildings upon it would rise to double its
former value when cultivated by free men, it follows that the land and
buildings alone would be worth as much then, that is, when worked by
free labourers, as the land, buildings, and slaves together are worth at
the present time.
I have now, I think, pretty well canvassed the subject, and I shall
therefore hasten to a conclusion. And first, I ask the West Indians,
whether they think that they will be allowed to carry on their present
cruel system, the arbitrary use of the whip and the chain, and the
brutal debasement of their fellow-creatures, _for ever_. I say, No; I
entertain better hopes of the humanity and justice of the British
people. I am sure that they will interfere, and that when they _once
take up the cause_, they _will never abandon it till they have obtained
their object_. And what is it, after all, that I have been proposing in
the course of the preceding pages? two things only, viz. that the laws
relating to the slaves may be revised by the British parliament, so that
they, may be made (as it was always intended) _to accord with, and not
to be repugnant to_, the principles of the British constitution, and
that, when such a revision shall have taken place, the slaves may be put
into _a state of preparation for emancipation_; and for such an
emancipation only as may be compatible with the joint interests of the
master and the slave. Is there any thing unreasonable in this
proposition? Is it unreasonable to desire that those laws should be
repealed, which are contrary to the laws of God, or that the Africans
and their descendants, who have the shape, image, intellect, feelings,
and affections of men, should be treated as human beings?
The measure then, which I have been proposing, is _not unreasonable_. I
trust it _would not be injurious_ to the interests of the West Indians
themselves. These are at present, it is said, in great distress; and so
they have been for years; and so they will still be (and moreover they
will be getting worse and worse) _so long as they continue slavery_. How
can such a wicked, such an ill-framed system succeed? Has not the
Almighty in his moral government of the world stamped a character upon
human actions, and given such a turn to their operations, that the
balance should be ultimately in favour of virtue? Has he not taken from
those, who act wickedly, the power of discerning the right path? or has
he not so confounded their faculties, that they are for ever frustrating
their own schemes? It is only to know the practice of our planters to be
assured, that it will bring on difficulty after difficulty, and loss
after loss, till it will end in ruin. If a man were to sit down and to
try to invent a ruinous system of agriculture, could he devise one more
to his mind than that which they have been in the habit of using? Let us
look at some of the more striking parts of this system. The first that
stares us in the face, is the unnatural and destructive practice of
_forced labour_. Here we see men working without any rational stimulus
to elicit their exertions, and therefore they must be followed by
drivers with whips in their hands. Well might it be said by Mr. Botham
to the Committees of Privy-council and House of Commons, "Let it be
considered, how much labour is lost by the persons overseeing the forced
labourer, which is saved when he works for his own profit;" and,
notwithstanding all the vigilance and whipping of these drivers, I have
proved that the slaves do more for themselves in an afternoon, than in a
whole day when they work for their masters. It was doubtless the
conviction that _forced labour was unprofitable_, as well as that there
would be less of human suffering, which made Mr. Steele take away the
whips from his drivers, as _the very first step necessary_ in his
improved system, or as the _sine quâ non_ without which such a system
could not properly be begun; and did not this very measure _alter the
face of his affairs in point of profit in three years after it had been
put into operation_? And here it must be observed, that, if ever
emancipation should be begun by our planters, this must be (however they
may dislike to part with arbitrary power) as much a first step with them
as it was with Mr. Steele. _Forced labour_ stands at the head of the
catalogue of those nuisances belonging to slavery, which oppose the
planter's gain. It must be removed before any thing else can be done.
See what mischiefs it leads to, independently of its want of profit. It
is impossible that forced labour can be kept up from day to day without
injury to the constitution of the slaves; and if their health is
injured, the property of their masters must be injured also. Forced
labour, again, sends many of them to the sick-houses. Here is, at any
rate, a loss of their working time. But it drives them also occasionally
to run away, and sometimes to destroy themselves. Here again is a loss
of their working time and of property into the bargain. _Forced labour_,
then, is one of those striking parts in the West Indian husbandry, in
which we see a _constant source of loss_ to those who adopt it; and may
we not speak, and yet with truth, as unfavourably of some of the other
striking parts in the same system? What shall we say, first, to that
injurious disproportion of the articles of croppage with the wants of
the estates, which makes little or no provision of food for the
labourers (_the very first to be cared for_), but leaves these to be fed
by articles to be bought three thousand miles off in another country,
let the markets there be ever so high, or the prices ever so
unfavourable, at the time? What shall we say, again, to that obstinate
and ruinous attachment to old customs, in consequence of which even
acknowledged improvements are almost forbidden to be received? How
generally has the introduction of the plough been opposed in the West
Indies, though both the historians of Jamaica have recommended the use
of it, and though it has been proved that _one plough_ with _two sets of
horses_ to relieve each other, would turn up as much land _in a day, as
one hundred Negroes_ could with their hoes! Is not the hoe also
continued in earthing up the canes there, when Mr. Botham proved, more
than thirty years ago, that _two_ men would do more with the East Indian
shovel at that sort of work in a day, than _ten_ Negroes with the former
instrument? So much for _unprofitable instruments_ of husbandry; a few
words now on _unprofitable modes of employment_. It seems, first, little
less than infatuation, to make Negroes carry baskets of dung upon their
heads, basket after basket, to the field. I do not mention this so much
as an intolerable hardship upon those who have to perform it, as an
improvident waste of strength and time. Why are not horses, or mules, or
oxen, and carts or other vehicles of convenience, used oftener on such
occasions? I may notice also that cruel and most disadvantageous mode of
employment of making Negroes collect grass for the cattle, by picking it
by the hand blade by blade. Are no artificial grasses to be found in our
islands, and is the existence of the scythe unknown there? But it is of
no use to dwell longer upon this subject. The whole system is a ruinous
one from the beginning to the end. And from whence does such a system
arise? It has its origin in _slavery_ alone. It is practised no where
but in the land of ignorance and slavery. Slavery indeed, or rather the
despotism which supports slavery, has no compassion, and it is one of
its characteristics _never to think of sparing the sinews of the
wretched creature called a slave_. Hence it is slow to adopt helps, with
which a beneficent Providence has furnished us, by giving to man an
inventive faculty for easing his burthens, or by submitting the beasts
of the field to his dominion and his use, and it flies to expedients
which are contrary to nature and reason. How then can such a system ever
answer? Were an English farmer to have recourse to such a system, he
would not be able to pay his rent for a single year. If the planters
then are in distress, it is their own fault. They may, however, thank
the abolitionists that they are not worse off than they are at present.
The abolition of the slave trade, by cutting off the purchase of new
slaves, has cut off one cause of their ruin[17]; and it is only the
abolition _of slavery which can yet save them_. Had the planters, when
the slave trade was abolished, taken immediate measures to meet the
change; had they then revised their laws and substituted better; had
they then put their slaves into a state of preparation for emancipation,
in what a different, that is, desirable situation would they have been
at this moment! In fact, _nothing can save them, but the abolition of
slavery on a wise and prudent plan_. They can no more expect, without
it, to meet the present low prices of colonial produce, than the British
farmer can meet the present low prices of grain, unless he can have an
abatement of rent, tithe, and taxation, and unless his present poor
rates can be diminished also. Take away, however, from the planters the
use and practice of slavery, and the hour of _their regeneration_ would
be begun. Can we doubt, that Providence would then bless their
endeavours, and that _salvation_ from their difficulties would be their
portion in the end?
It has appeared, I hope, by this time, that what I have been proposing
is not unreasonable, and that, so far from being injurious to the
interests of the planters, it would be highly advantageous to them. I
shall now show, that I do not ask for the introduction of a more humane
system into our Colonies _at a time when it would be improper to grant
it_; or that no fair objection can be raised against the _present
moment_, as _the fit era_ from whence the measures in contemplation
should commence. There was, indeed, a time when the planters might have
offered something like an excuse for the severity of their conduct
towards their slaves, on the plea that the greater part of them then in
the colonies were _African-born_ or _strangers_, and that cargoes were
constantly pouring in, one after the other, consisting of the same sort
of beings; or of _stubborn ferocious people, never accustomed to work,
whose spirits it was necessary to break_, and _whose necks to force down
to the yoke_; and that this could only be effected by the whip, the
chain, the iron collar, and other instruments of the kind. But _now_ no
such plea can be offered. It is now sixteen years since the slave trade
was abolished by England, and it is therefore to be presumed, that no
new slaves have been imported into the British colonies within that
period. The slaves, therefore, who are there at this day, must consist
either of Africans, whose spirits must have been long ago broken, or of
Creoles born in the cradle and brought up in the trammels of slavery.
What argument then can be produced for the continuation of a barbarous
discipline there? And we are very glad to find that two gentlemen, both
of whom we have had occasion to quote before, bear us out in this
remark. Mr. Steele, speaking of some of the old cruel laws of Barbadoes,
applies them to the case before us in these words:--"As, according to
Ligon's account, there were not above two-thirds of the island in
plantations in the year 1650, we must suppose that in the year 1688 the
great number of _African-born_ slaves brought into the plantations in
chains, and compelled to labour by the terrors of corporal punishment,
might have made it appear necessary to enact a temporary law so harsh as
the statute No. 82; but when the _great majority_ of the Negroes were
become _vernacular, born in the island, naturalized by language_, and
_familiarised by custom_, did not _policy_ as well as humanity require:
them _to be put under milder conditions_, such as were granted to the
slaves of our Saxon ancestors?" Colonel Malenfant speaks the same
sentiments. In defending his plan, which he offered to the French
Government for St. Domingo in 1814, against the vulgar prejudice, that
"where you employ Negroes you must of necessity use slavery," he
delivers himself thus:--"[18]If all the Negroes on a plantation had not
been more than six months out of Africa, or if they had the same ideas
concerning an independent manner of life as the Indians or the savages
of Guiana, I should consider my plan to be impracticable. I should then
say that coercion would be necessary: but ninety-nine out of every
hundred Negroes in St. Domingo are aware that they cannot obtain
necessaries without work. They know that it is their duty to work, and
they are even desirous of working; but the remembrance of their cruel
sufferings in the time of slavery renders them suspicious." We may
conclude, then, that if a cruel discipline was _not necessary_ in the
years 1790 and 1794, to which these gentlemen allude, when there must
have been _some thousands of newly imported Africans_ both in St.
Domingo and in the English colonies, it cannot be necessary _now_, when
there have been no importations into the latter for _fifteen years_.
There can be no excuse, then, for the English planters for not altering
their system, and this _immediately_. It is, on the other hand, a great
reproach to them, considering the quality and character of their slaves,
_that they should not of themselves have come forward on the subject
before this time_.