RESPONSIBILITY ATTACHING TO MINISTERS IF
THEY ENFORCE COMPULSORY MANUMISSION.
Whoever notices the levity of manner with which this question is
treated, would imagine that our constitution had undergone a change,
and that His Majesty’s advisers were relieved from responsibility
for the acts of the executive. On any occasion it is a rash step to
counsel the crown to important measures before a full investigation
has been instituted. But when a step is taken so contrary to the laws
of the realm, as, by eminent law-authorities, Compulsory Manumission,
in regard to mortgaged property, is conceived to be, _responsibility_
ceases to be an idle term, and circumstances may arise from it
to disturb the peace of a minister of state much longer than he
anticipates.
It can never be too often repeated that, so far as legislation for
the negroes is concerned, what is once done is irrevocable. In other
public measures, an opportunity is afforded to a minister, when he
makes a false step, to change his policy by a dexterous manœuvre.
But no such resource being afforded in the West India Question, we
should conclude that more cautious deliberation would in the first
instance be exercised, and that a _full examination_ would take
place before excitement was created by announcing even the heads of
a new measure. The proceedings hitherto have been on a principle
directly opposite. While the Irish Question remains undecided, though
more than a generation has passed by since it commenced; and while
the Corn Question has stood over until argument on the subject is
exhausted: In the West India Question—where, wrong measures being
once taken, all remedy is hopeless—the parties whose whole property
is at stake cannot be allowed more than the lapse of a few weeks, to
put on record all their objections to the most essential innovations.
This presents an anomaly in the history of public measures, and
it can only be accounted for by supposing that ministers, amid
their many duties, have completely undervalued the importance of
the measure now pending. This conclusion is confirmed by what is
understood to be their language to independent members of the
legislature whose suffrage they solicit in future discussion. They
say the principal opposition of the West Indians is no more than
idle and transient clamour. It is merely of a piece with what has
been always witnessed. When the abolition of the slave-trade was
under discussion, did we not hear the cry, that our ancient colonies
would be ruined? That great measure was carried, yet no ruin ensued.
When the Registry Bill was brought in, had we not a similar clamour,
that the most dangerous excitement among the slaves would be the
consequence? That point, too, was carried; yet no such direful
evils attended it. Again, when the recent Amelioration Clauses
were proposed, how furious was the opposition in the colonies,—the
proprietors there were to be utterly ruined. Many of these clauses
have since been enacted, even where opposition was strongest at the
first, and yet no injury or change has taken place! What is the
inference in regard to compulsory manumission? We have strenuous
opposition at present, it is true; but when the measure is once
carried, that will soon subside, and all the frightful features of
danger which have alarmed the colonists will turn out to be mere
phantoms of the imagination.
Now, in answer, may we not allege, in the first place, that the
objections urged against those former measures were not groundless.
Our abolition of the slave-trade, without securing the effectual
concurrence of foreign powers in a similar act, has transferred from
British to foreign colonies the principal supply of Europe with
sugar, and without the smallest benefit to Africa. The Registry Bills
are an enormous tax on our impoverished colonies, and it is not to
them we owe the extinction of our colonial slave-trade. Of our recent
Amelioration Clauses, the effect in diminishing production is as yet
more certain than that of increased benefit to the negro-population.
In the second place, may we not pronounce that the case we are now
submitting is very different from any of those cited?
But in this age of superficiality, where all laborious investigation
seems exploded, and when a well-turned period of declamation in
Parliament sways the nation, let us take another mode of pointing out
the difference of this case.
In those important measures which were passed some time back, the
Government carried a great number of colonial proprietors living
in this country along with them. How different, then, on _primâ
facie_ evidence, must be the nature and bearings of the measure now
proposed, when colonial proprietors, who have always acted with
ministers, are constrained, as a solemn duty in defence of their
properties and of their families, to oppose it strenuously! It is
evident, that to occasion such a feeling, there must be something in
the measure alarmingly important, and demanding the most cautious
scrutiny.
In former times, the letters sent out by colonial proprietors in
England to their friends in the colonies impressed upon the latter,
to do all that they were able, to silence clamour in England; but
with regard to compulsory manumission, the lesser evil is chosen,
and the admonition is, “Beware of passing this measure, and thus
committing yourselves by your own act. _Throw all the responsibility
upon ministers, that you may hereafter have full claims for
indemnification._”
The question then resolves itself into this,—Are ministers,
considering the situation in which they are placed, and having a
due regard to their own fame, prepared to take this responsibility
upon themselves? Do they rely upon the passing opinions of the day
for their support? Lord Bathurst says, in his despatches, that
the colonial legislature “may be assured, that from the final
accomplishment of this object this country will not be diverted.”
Now it may be true that, with the unthinking populace, the extinction
of slavery is desired; but what practical statesman would take this
vague expression of feeling for his guide? It may safely be affirmed,
that the intelligent portion of the community are aware of the
difficulties, and expect from Government, not what is theoretically
to be desired, but what is practically and wisely attainable.
They are not prepared to lose our West India colonies, which are
believed to contribute largely to the prosperity and strength of the
kingdom; nor are they at all disposed to inflict injustice upon their
fellow-subjects, knowing well, that whatever odium may now attach to
the colonial proprietor, the charge of having countenanced slavery
is one which he shares with the whole British nation.
But it ought further to be known, and well reflected on by His
Majesty’s ministers, that humane and enlightened individuals, not
anxious for the political so much as the moral grandeur of the
country, who waive every notion of expediency, and consider the cause
of humanity as paramount, are beginning to entertain doubts as to the
wisdom of the proceedings of Government.
This is not vague opinion, but is founded on weighty reasons.
FIRST: That it is the object of British humanity to exalt the
entire African race, and to accomplish it as a matter of genuine
philanthropy in the most general and efficient manner.
It appears by parliamentary documents, that as cultivation, during
some years past, has decreased in the British colonies, precisely in
the same degree has the slave-trade of foreigners increased.
To ruin or deteriorate the British colonies is thus to encourage
the horrors of the slave-trade, and to increase the sum of African
suffering.
Therefore, it being the object of the British nation to abridge that
suffering, and not to make a mere display of sensibility, if the
proposed measures can be proved to be destructive of cultivation in
the British colonies, their spirit must be pronounced to be contrary
to the sentiments of the country.
And, SECONDLY: That having long since committed the crime of
transporting the negroes to our West India colonies, it is expected
by the British nation, that the welfare of future generations will be
contemplated; and that, hereafter, a black society may be witnessed,
possessing in itself the attributes, moral, intellectual, and
political, of a civilized people.
So strongly does this sentiment pervade the nation, that it is
common to hear the inquiry—“What are the negroes to do when free?”
implying the belief that rash interference may have proceeded far to
accomplish the object, but that judicious legislation has stopped
short on the threshold.
If we were to make an appeal to Lord Bathurst, and to all who have
taken an active part in the promotion of compulsory manumission, must
they not acknowledge, that since the agitation of the subject in
1823, a considerable and perceptible change has taken place in public
opinion, in consequence of the inquiry relative to free labour; and
that the idea of having a free negro-peasantry labouring under a
tropical climate for hire is impracticable and hopeless.
Does not, then, the whole question depend on free labour?
We cannot but infer, that when the relations and consequences of
granting freedom to the negroes by compulsion are fully understood in
all their widely-spreading effects, the opinion of the country will
be as strongly expressed in reprobation, as Earl Bathurst pronounces
it at present to be in approbation of the speedy adoption of the
measure.
Without any disrespect it may be stated, that some of our ministers,
who are upborne by the current of public applause, have had
sufficient experience of the fickleness of popularity. Let us recall
to mind the wise precept of Mr. Canning in 1819—“Speak not the _will_
of the populace, but consult their _benefit_.”
We appeal to each member of parliament to further this counsel.
The question of negro-_emancipation_ is virtually before them. It
is conceived, by all those whose properties are at stake, to be
presented in its most objectionable form, and they unanimously oppose
it. Before deciding on the subject, let every member reflect on the
sentiments of two of our greatest statesmen.
Mr. Pitt, in every discussion in which negro-emancipation was
agitated, pronounced, that it was an act which must “flow from the
master alone.”
When that presiding genius of the country’s commercial greatness was
no more—when Mr. Fox had coalesced with Lord Grenville,—and above
all, when the whole anti-colonial party, with Mr. Wilberforce at
its head, had joined his ranks, Mr. Fox, in the full tide of his
popularity and his power, declared—
“That the idea of an act of parliament to emancipate the slaves in
the West Indies, _without the consent and concurrent feeling of all
parties concerned_, BOTH IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN THAT, would not only
be mischievous in its consequences, but totally extravagant in its
conception, as well as impracticable in its execution.”
THE END.
LONDON:
Printed by W. CLOWES,
Stamford-street.
------------------
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE
Obvious typographical and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Some hyphens in words have been silently removed (e.g., “West India” and
“West Indian”) and added (e.g., “sugar-plantation” and “sugar-estate”),
when a predominant preference was found in the original book.
Except for those changes noted below, all misspellings and inconsistent
or archaic usage in the text have been retained.
Page 3: “particular acts ema nate” replaced by “particular acts emanate”
Page 63: “announce to theslaves” replaced by “announce to the slaves”
------------------