Part 3

Neither have the masters of slaves in our colonies any title to their slaves on account of any _charters_, which they may be able to produce, though their charters are the only source of their power. It is through these that they have hitherto legislated, and that they continue to legislate. Take away their charters, and they would have no right or power to legislate at all. And yet, though they have their charters, and though the slavery, which now exists, has been formed and kept together entirely by the laws, which such charters have given them the power to make, this very slavery _is illegal_. There is not an individual, who holds any of the slaves by a _legal_ title: for it is expressed in all these charters, whether in those given to William Penn and others for the continent of North America, or in those given for the islands now under our consideration, that "the laws and statutes, to be made there, are _not to be repugnant_, but, as near as may be, _agreeable, to the laws_ and statutes of this our _kingdom of Great Britain_." But is it consistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of forcing another to work for him without wages? Is it consistent with the laws of England, that any one man should have the power of flogging, beating, bruising, or wounding another at his discretion? Is it consistent with the laws of England, that a man should be judged by any but his peers? Is it consistent with the same laws, that a man should be deprived of the power of giving evidence against the man who has injured him? or that there should be a privileged class, against whom no testimony can be admitted on certain occasions, though the perpetrators of the most horrid crimes? But when we talk of consistency on this occasion, let us not forget that old law of Barbadoes, made while the charter of that island was fresh in every body's memory, and therefore in the very teeth of the charter itself, which runs thus: "If any slave, under punishment by his master or by his order, shall suffer in life or member, no person shall be liable to any fine for the same: but if any person shall _wantonly_ or _cruelly_ kill his own slave, he shall pay the treasury 15 l." And here let us remark, that, when Lord Seaforth, governor of Barbadoes, proposed, so lately as in 1802, the repeal of this bloody law, the Legislature of that island rejected the proposition with indignation. Nay, the very proposal to repeal it so stirred up at the time the bad passions of many, that several brutal murders of slaves were committed in consequence; and it was not till two or three years afterwards that the governor had influence enough to get the law repealed. Let the West Indians then talk no more of their _charters_; for in consequence of having legislated upon principles, which are at variance with those upon which the laws of England are founded, they have _forfeited them all_. The mother country has therefore a right to withdraw these charters whenever she pleases, and to substitute such others as she may think proper. And here let it be observed also, that the right of the West Indians to make any laws at all for their own islands being founded upon their charters, and upon these alone, and the laws relating to the slaves being contrary to what such charters prescribe, the _slavery itself_, that is, the daily living practice with respect to slaves under such laws, _is illegal_ and _may be done away_. But if so, all our West Indian slaves are, without exception, unlawfully held in bondage. There is no master, who has a legal title to any of them. This assertion may appear strange and extravagant to many; but it does not follow on that account that it is the less true. It is an assertion, which has been made by a West Indian proprietor himself. Mr. Steele[4], before quoted, furnishes us with what passed at the meeting of the Society of Arts in Barbadoes at their committee-room in August 1785, when the following question was in the order of the day: "Is there any law written, or printed, by which a proprietor can prove his title to his slave under or conformable to the laws of England?" And "Why, (immediately said one of the members,) why conformable to the laws of England? Will not the courts in England admit such proof as is authorized by _our slave laws_?"--"I apprehend not, (answered a second,) unless we can show that _our slave laws_ (according to the limitations of the charter) are _not_ repugnant to the laws of England."--The same gentleman resumed: "Does the original purchaser of an African slave in this island obtain any legal title from the merchant or importer of slaves--and of what nature? Does it set forth any title of propriety, agreeable to the laws of England (or even to the laws of nations) to be in the importer more than what depends upon his simple averment? And have not free Negroes been at sundry times trepanned by such dealers, and been brought contrary to the laws of nations, and sold here as slaves?"--"There is no doubt, (observed a third,) but such villainous actions have been done by worthless people: however, though an honest and unsuspicious man may be deceived in buying a stolen horse, it does not follow that he may not have a fair and just title to a horse or any thing else bought in an open and legal market; but according to the obligation _of being not repugnant to the laws of England_, I do not see how _we can have any title to our slaves_ likely to be supported by the laws of England." In fact, the Colonial system is an excrescence upon the English Constitution, and is constantly at variance with it. There is not one English law, which gives a man a right to the liberty of any of his fellow creatures. Of course there cannot be, according to charters, any Colonial law to this effect. If there be, it is _null and void_. Nay, the very man, who is held in bondage by the Colonial law, becomes free by English law the moment he reaches the English shore. But we have said enough for our present purpose. We have shown that the slaves in our Colonies, whether they be Africans, or whether they be Creoles, _have been unjustly deprived of their rights_. There is of course a great debt due to them. They have a claim to a restoration to liberty; and as this restoration was included by the Abolitionists in their original idea of the abolition of the slavetrade, so it is their duty to endeavour to obtain it _the first moment it is practicable_. I shall conclude my observations on this part of the subject, in the words of that old champion of African liberty, Mr. W. Smith, the present Member for Norwich, when addressing the House of Commons in the last session of parliament on a particular occasion. He admitted, alluding to the slaves in our colonies, that "immediate emancipation might be an injury, and not a blessing to the slaves themselves. A period of _preparation_, which unhappily included delay, seemed to be necessary. The ground of this delay, however, was not the intermediate advantage to be derived from their labour, but a conviction of its expediency as it related to themselves. We had to _compensate_ to these wretched beings _for ages of injustice_. We were bound by the strongest obligations _to train up_ these subjects of our past injustice and tyranny _for an equal participation with ourselves in the blessings of liberty and the protection of the law_; and by these considerations ought our measures to be strictly and conscientiously regulated. It was only in consequence of the necessity of time to be consumed in such a preparation, that we could be justified in the retention of the Negroes in slavery _for a single hour_; and he trusted that the eyes of all men, both here and in the colonies, would be open to this view of the subject as their clear and indispensable duty."

Having led the reader to the first necessary step to be taken in favour of our slaves in the British Colonies,--namely, the procuring for them a new and better code of laws; and having since led him to the last or final one,--namely, the procuring for them the rights of which they have been unjustly deprived: I shall now confine myself entirely to this latter branch of the subject, being assured, that it has a claim to all the attention that can be bestowed upon it; and I trust that I shall be able to show, by appealing to historical facts, that however awful and tremendous the work of _emancipation_ may seem, it is yet _practicable_; that it is practicable also _without danger_; and moreover, that it is practicable with the probability of _advantage_ to all the parties concerned.

In appealing however to facts for this purpose, we must expect no light from antiquity to guide us on our way; for history gives us no account of persons in those times similarly situated with the slaves in the British colonies at the present day. There were no particular nations in those times, like the Africans, expressly set apart for slavery by the rest of the world, so as to have a stigma put upon them on that account, nor did a difference of the colour of the skin constitute always, as it now does, a most marked distinction between the master and the slave, so as to increase this stigma and to perpetuate antipathies between them. Nor did the slaves of antiquity, except perhaps once in Sparta, form the whole labouring population of the land; nor did they work incessantly, like the Africans, under the whip; nor were they generally so behind their masters in cultivated intellect. Neither does ancient history give us in the cases of manumission, which it records, any parallel, from which we might argue in the case before us. The ancient manumissions were those of individuals only, generally of but one at a time, and only now and then; whereas the emancipation, which we contemplate in the colonies, will comprehend _whole bodies of men_, nay, _whole populations_, at a given time. We must go therefore in quest of examples to modern times, or rather to the history of the colonial slavery itself; and if we should find any there, which appear to bear at all upon the case in question, we must be thankful for them, and, though they should not be entirely to our mind, we must not turn them away, but keep them, and reason from them as far as their analogies will warrant.

In examining a period comprehending the last forty years, I find no less than six or seven instances of the emancipation of African slaves _in bodies_. The first of these cases occurred at the close of the first American war. A number of slaves had run away from their North American masters and joined the British army. When peace came, the British Government did not know what to do with them. Their services were no longer wanted. To leave them behind to fall again into the power of their masters would have been great cruelty as well as injustice; and as to taking them to England, what could have been done with them there? It was at length determined to give _them their liberty_, and to disband them in Nova Scotia, and to settle them there upon grants of land as _British subjects_ and as _free men_. The Nova Scotians on learning their destination were alarmed. They could not bear the thought of having such a number of black persons among them, and particularly as these understood the use of arms. The Government, however, persevering in its original intention, they were conveyed to Halifax, and distributed from thence into the country. Their number, comprehending men, women, and children, were two thousand and upwards. To gain their livelihood, some of them worked upon little portions of land of their own; others worked as carpenters; others became fishermen; and others worked for hire in other ways. In process of time they raised places of worship of their own, and had ministers of their own from their own body. They led a harmless life, and gained the character of an industrious and honest people from their white neighbours. A few years afterwards the land in Nova Scotia being found too poor to answer, and the climate too cold for their constitutions, a number of them, to the amount of between thirteen and fourteen hundred, volunteered to form a new colony, which was then first thought of, at Sierra Leone. Accordingly, having been conveyed there, they realized the object in view; and they are to be found there, they or their descendants, most of them in independent and some of them in affluent circumstances, at the present day.

A second case may be taken from what occurred at the close of the second, or last American war. It may be remembered that a large British naval force, having on board a powerful land force, sailed in the year 1814, to make a descent on the coast of the southern States of America. The British army, when landed, marched to Washington, and burnt most of its public buildings. It was engaged also at different times with the American army in the field. During these expeditions, some hundreds of slaves in these parts joined the British standard by invitation. When the campaign was over, the same difficulty occurred about disposing of these as in the former case. It was determined at length to ship them to Trinidad _as free labourers_. But here, that is, at Trinidad, an objection was started against receiving them, but on a different ground from that which had been started in the similar case in Nova Scotia. The planters of Trinidad were sure that no free Negroes would ever work, and therefore that the slaves in question would, if made free and settled among them, support themselves _by plunder_. Sir Ralph Woodford, however, the governor of the island, resisted the outcry of these prejudices. He received them into the island, and settled them where he supposed the experiment would be most safely made. The result has shown his discernment. These very men, formerly slaves in the Southern States of America and afterwards emancipated in a body at Trinidad, are now earning their own livelihood, and with so much industry and good conduct that the calumnies originally spread against them have entirely died away.

A third case may comprehend those Negroes, who lately formed what we call our West Indian black regiments. Some of these had been originally purchased in Africa, not as slaves but recruits, and others in Jamaica and elsewhere. They had all served as soldiers in the West Indies. At length certain of these regiments were transported to Sierra Leone and disbanded there, and the individuals composing them received their discharge _as free men_. This happened in the spring of 1819. _Many hundreds_ of them were _set at liberty at once_ upon this occasion. Some of these were afterwards marched into the interior, where they founded Waterloo, Hastings, and other villages. Others were shipped to the Isles de Loss, where they made settlements in like manner. Many, in both cases, took with them their wives, which they had brought from the West Indies, and others selected wives from the natives on the spot. They were all settled upon grants given them by the Government. It appears from accounts received from Sir Charles M'Carthy, the governor of Sierra Leone, that they have conducted themselves to his satisfaction, and that they will prove a valuable addition to that colony.

A fourth case may comprehend what we call _the captured Negroes_ in the colony now mentioned. These are totally distinct from those either in the first or in the last of the cases which have been mentioned. It is well known that these were taken out of slave-ships captured at different times from the commencement of the abolition of the slave trade to the present moment, and that on being landed _they were made free_. After having been recruited in their health they were marched in bodies into the interior, where they were taught to form villages and to cultivate land for themselves. They were _made free_ as they were landed from the vessels, _from fifty to two or three hundred at a time_. They occupy at present twelve towns, in which they have both their churches and their schools. Regents Town having been one of the first established, containing about thirteen hundred souls, stands foremost in improvement, and has become a pattern for industry and good example. The people there have now fallen entirely into the habits of English society. They are decently and respectably dressed. They attend divine worship regularly. They exhibit an orderly and moral conduct. In their town little shops are now beginning to make their appearance; and their lands show the marks of extraordinary cultivation. Many of them, after having supplied their own wants for the year, have a surplus produce in hand for the purchase of superfluities or comforts.

Here then are four cases of slaves, either Africans or descendants of Africans, _emancipated_ in _considerable bodies_ at a time. I have kept them by themselves, became they are of a different complexion from those, which I intend should follow. I shall now reason upon them. Let me premise, however, that I shall consider the three first of the cases as one, so that the same reasoning will do for all. They are alike indeed in their _main_ features; and we must consider this as sufficient; for to attend minutely to every shade of difference[5], which may occur in every case, would be to bewilder the reader, and to swell the size of my work unnecessarily, or without conferring an adequate benefit to the controversy on either side.

It will be said then (for my reasoning will consist principally in answering objections on the present occasion) that the three first cases _are not strictly analogous_ to that of our West Indian slaves, whose emancipation we are seeking. It will be contended, that the slaves in our West Indian colonies have been constantly in an abject and degraded state. Their faculties are benumbed. They have contracted all the vices of slavery. They are become habitually thieves and liars. Their bosoms burn with revenge against the whites. How then can persons in such a state be fit to receive their freedom? The slaves, on the other hand, who are comprehended in the three cases above mentioned, found in the British army a school as it were, _which fitted them by degrees for making a good use of their liberty_. While they were there, they were never out of the reach of discipline, and yet were daily left to themselves to act as free men. They obtained also in this _preparatory school_ some knowledge of the customs of civilized life. They were in the habit also of mixing familiarly with the white soldiers. Hence, it will be said, they were in a state much _more favourable for undergoing a change in their condition_ than the West Indian slaves before mentioned. I admit all this. I admit the difference between the two situations, and also the preference which I myself should give to the one above the other on account of its desirable tendencies. But I never stated, that our West Indian slaves were to be emancipated _suddenly_, but _by degrees_. I always, on the other hand, took it for granted, that they were to have _their preparatory school_ also. Nor must it be forgotten, as a comparison has been instituted, that if there was _less danger_ in emancipating the other slaves, _because they had received something like a preparatory education_ for the change, there was _far more_ in another point of view, because _they were all acquainted with the use of arms_. This is a consideration of great importance; but particularly when we consider _the prejudices of the blacks against the whites_; for would our West Indian planters be as much at their ease, as they now are, if their slaves had acquired _a knowledge of the use of arms_, or would they think them on this account more or less fit for emancipation?

It will be said again, that the fourth case, consisting of the Sierra Leone captured Negroes, _is not strictly analogous_ to the one in point. These had probably been slaves but _for a short time_,--say a few months, including the time which elapsed between their reduction to slavery and their embarkation from Africa, and between this their embarkation and their capture upon the ocean. They had scarcely been slaves when they were returned to the rank of free men. Little or no change therefore could have been effected in so short an interim in their disposition and their character; and, as they were never carried to the West Indies, so they never could have contracted the bad habits, or the degradation or vices, of the slavery there. It will be contended therefore, that they were _better_, _or less hazardous_, subjects for _emancipation_, than the slaves in our colonies. I admit this objection, and I give it its full weight. I admit it to be _less hazardous_ to emancipate a _new_ than an _old_ slave. And yet the case of the Sierra Leone captured Negroes is a very strong one. They were all _Africans_. They were all _slaves_. They must have contracted _as mortal a hatred of the whites_ from their sufferings on board ship by fetters, whips, and suffocation in the hold, as the West Indian from those severities which are attached to their bondage upon shore. Under these circumstances then we find them _made free_; but observe, not after any _preparatory_ discipline, but almost _suddenly_, and _not singly_, but _in bodies_ at a time. We find them also settled or made to live under the _unnatural_ government of the _whites_; and, what is more extraordinary, we find their present number, as compared with that of the whites in the same colony, nearly as _one hundred and fifty to one_; notwithstanding which superiority fresh emancipations are constantly taking place, as fresh cargoes of the captured arrive in port.