------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
Some minor changes to the text are noted at the end of the book.
------------------
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION;
OR
AN EXAMINATION
OF
THE ACTUAL STATE
OF THE
WEST INDIA QUESTION.
BY
ALEXANDER M‘DONNELL, ESQ.
LONDON:
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE-STREET.
MDCCCXXVII.
LONDON:
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES,
Stamford-Street.
ADVERTISEMENT.
It is fearful odds against a writer, when, at each stage of his task,
he is liable to encounter prejudice as an upholder of a condition of
society so repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen as that of slavery.
Greatly must those odds be increased, if a disposition be shown by
Government, hitherto believed impartial, to array the weight of its
authority against him.
But it is hoped that prejudice will not preclude inquiry. In the
following pages it will be found, that in setting forth the actual
state of the West India Question, the real and permanent welfare of
the slaves occupies a conspicuous place.
In regard to the display of power, let us conclude, that when a
measure can be demonstrated as positively bad, such disapprobation
will be manifested by the independent and disinterested members
of the legislature, as must exercise a salutary control over the
counsels of ministers.
Under this impression, the following pages are respectfully submitted
to the consideration of the members of both Houses of Parliament.
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
_West India Party disingenuously treated_ 1
CHAPTER II.
_Compulsory Manumission contrary to the Spirit of the
Resolutions of Parliament_ 12
CHAPTER III.
_Infringement of the Right of Property_ 22
_Sect._ 1.—The Conversion of good Servants into bad 22
_Sect._ 2.—Loss arising, if a number of effective Hands
be taken from the Plantation 35
_Sect._ 3.—Plantations burdened with Expenses, while
the gross Returns are diminished 44
_Sect._ 4.—Contrary to the Law of Mortgage 47
CHAPTER IV.
_Injury to the Well-being of the Slaves_ 51
_Sect._ 1.—Counteracts the Incentives to Civilization 51
_Sect._ 2.—Debauchery and Crime encouraged 53
_Sect._ 3.—Virtuous Union of the Sexes impeded 56
_Sect._ 4.—Task-work prevented 57
_Sect._ 5.—Invidious Feelings excited by prompting to a
general Rush for Freedom 60
CHAPTER V.
_Safety of the Colonies endangered_ 64
_Sect._ 1.—Cultivation superseded 65
_Sect._ 2.—Rebellion instigated 66
CHAPTER VI.
_No just Analogy in the Precedents adduced by Government_ 70
_Sect._ 1.—Trinidad 70
_Sect._ 2.—St. Lucie 73
_Sect._ 3.—Berbice 74
_Sect._ 4.—Cape of Good Hope 76
CHAPTER VII.
_Responsibility attaching to Ministers if they enforce
Compulsory Manumission_ 78
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
CHAPTER I.
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
Proceedings of 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 unceremoniously towards 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, _responsibility_ peculiarly attaches
to that officer of the crown from whose department particular acts
emanate. 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 fairly stated, 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 have forgotten 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
speech_ of 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. Brougham brought
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 were ignorant 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 differed from
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 India
body 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.