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 for AMELIORATING
the condition of the slave population in His Majesty’s colonies.”
It was to facilitate the accomplishment of this object of
amelioration _alone_, 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 may PREPARE them for a
participation in those civil rights and privileges which 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 legislative measure for effecting emancipation had been
contemplated, the term should be,“ADMIT them 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 slaves _are 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 which _voluntary_
manumissions 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, and PREPARE them 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 secure moral 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 its object 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, including all official fees.
His Lordship thus appears to consider the _expense_ of 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 the _compulsory_
enactments 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 ascertain the
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, wherein _the consent of the
master_ is 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 word
PREPARE, 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 the colonies, 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 the grounds 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.