1. DR. BURGESS, THE PRESENT BISHOP OF SALISBURY, ON COLONIAL SLAVERY.

2. APPEAL TO THE BENCH OF BISHOPS ON COLONIAL SLAVERY, BY GRANVILLE SHARPE.

3. FRESH ATROCITIES IN BERBICE.

4. RECENT INTELLIGENCE FROM JAMAICA.

1. Colonial policy at the present crisis.

2. Conduct pursued towards missionaries.

5. CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—SOCIETY FOR REDEEMING SLAVES.

In our last Number we adduced the testimony of many distinguished prelates of the Church of England against the evils of Slavery. There remains one living Prelate whom it would be unpardonable for us to omit; we mean the present Bishop of Salisbury, Dr. Burgess. In the year 1789, this learned and excellent person published a pamphlet, which we fear has been long out of print, and is only now to be found in such libraries as that of the British Museum, entitled, “Considerations on the abolition of Slavery, and the Slave Trade, upon grounds of natural, religious, and political duty.” A Liverpool Clergyman of the name of Harris, had published a pamphlet in defence of slavery, which he represented as a dispensation of Providence,—a state of society recognised by the Gospel;—in which the reciprocal duties of masters and slaves are founded on the principle of both being servants of Christ, and are enforced by the Divine rules of Christian charity. The following are some of the indignant observations of the good Bishop, on witnessing such a prostitution of the sacred truths and obligations of religion:—

“Reciprocal duties!” he exclaims, “Reciprocal duties!—To have an adequate sense of the propriety of these terms, we must forget the humane provisions of the Hebrew law, as well as the liberal indulgence of Roman slavery, and think only of West India slavery! of unlimited, uncompensated, brutal slavery, and then judge what reciprocity there can be between absolute authority and absolute subjection; and how the Divine rule of Christian charity can be said to enforce the reciprocal duties of the West India slave and his master. Reciprocity is inconsistent with every degree of real slavery.” “Slavery cannot be called one of the species of civil subordination. A slave is a non-entity in civil society.” “Law and slavery are contradictory terms.”

The Bishop’s treatise is one among many proofs that the Abolitionists from the first contemplated the ultimate extinction of slavery as the end of their labours.

“Such oppression,” says the Bishop, (meaning the state of slavery), “and such traffic” (meaning the slave trade), “must be swept away at one blow. Such horrid offences against God and nature can admit of no medium. Yet some of the more moderate apologists of slavery think that a medium may be adopted. 434They think that slavery ought not to be abolished, but modified and meliorated by good laws and regulations. It is well observed by Cicero, that ‘incidunt multæ sæpe causæ quæ conturbent animos utilitatis specie, non cum hoc deliberetur, Relinquendane sit honestas propter utilitatis magnitudinem (nam id quidem improbum est,) sed illud, Possitne id quod utile videatur fieri non turpiter.’ But it is impossible for slavery ‘fieri non turpiter.’” pp. 82, 83.

The Bishop proceeds to observe, that “All the laws hitherto made, have produced little or no benefit to the slaves. But there are many reasons why it is very improbable that such provisions should produce any effectual benefit. The power which is exercised over the slaves, and the severe coercion necessary to keep an immense superiority of numbers in absolute obedience to a few, and restrain them from insurrection, are incompatible with justice or humanity, and are obnoxious to abuses which no legal regulations can counteract. The power which a West Indian master has over his slave, it is impossible for the generality of masters or managers not to abuse. It is too great to be intrusted in the hands of men subject to human passions and infirmities. The best principles and most generous natures are perverted by the influence of passion and habit.”^[1]

If these arguments of the Bishop be well founded, it follows, first, that the great mark at which every friend of humanity ought to aim, by all lawful expedients, is complete and irrevocable emancipation; secondly, that in the interim, as laws, when committed to the guardianship of the slave-holder, are merely waste paper, the Government and Legislature of this country should take the matter into their own hands, and shape their course to an ultimate extinction of an evil from which they cannot extract all the venom but by slaying the hydra itself; and thirdly, that too much weight should not be given to the representations of persons even of the “best principles and most generous natures,” when “perverted by the influence of passion and habit,” to apologize for, or wish to perpetuate, the enormities of this accursed system.

The Bishop in reply to those who defend or connive at West India slavery as a “dispensation of Providence,” and as, indirectly at least, sanctioned by the word of God, observes,

“Many attacks,” says his lordship, “have been made on the authority of Scripture; but nothing would more effectually subvert its authority than to prove that its injunctions are inconsistent with the common principles of benevolence, 435and inimical to the general rights of mankind. It would degrade the sanctity of Scripture; it would reverse all our ideas of God’s paternal attributes, and all arguments for the Divine origin of the Christian religion drawn from its precepts of universal charity and benevolence.” “That any custom so repugnant to the natural rights of mankind as the slave trade, or slavery the source and support of the slave trade, should be thought to be consonant to the principles of natural and revealed religion, is a paradox which it is difficult to reconcile with the reverence due to the records of our holy religion.”

His Lordship then proceeds to shew, 1st, That slavery and the slave trade are inconsistent with the principles of nature (in allusion to his opponent’s argument), deducible from Scripture. 2d. That no conclusion can be drawn in favour of West India slavery or the African slave trade (which the Bishop always classes and brands together) from particular transactions recorded in Scripture; both because the trade in slaves bears no resemblance to the slavery and slave trade in question, and because transactions merely recorded in Scripture history are not sanctioned by the record. 3d, That no conclusion can be formed from Hebrew laws respecting West Indian Slavery, because the conditions are by no means analogous; and because, even if they were, laws neither introduce nor justify every custom which they regulate. 4th, That the clearest and fullest permission of slavery to the Jews under the Law of Moses does not make it allowable to Christians, because the new law has succeeded to the ritual and judicial ordinances of the old; and we cannot reason from one state of things to another when any great revolution has intervened in the progress of religion. 5th, That, however such permission might appear to make slavery in any degree allowable to the first Hebrew Christians under the Roman government, it does not by any means make it allowable under the free government of this country, because we cannot reason from one form of government to another. 6th, That whatever may be the commercial and national advantages of slavery, (which however the Bishop does not estimate very highly: on the contrary, he strongly insists on its improvidence, and the vast superiority of free labour,) it ought not to be tolerated, because of the inadequacy of those advantages to their many bad effects and consequences. 7th, That slavery and the slave trade ought to be abolished on account of the good which would follow to religion, to mankind, and to ourselves.

We have not space to condense the whole of the Bishop’s arguments, but we shall present our readers with a few succinct notices. As for the atrocities of the African slave trade, or the cruelties of West India slavery, he says there is nothing in Scripture that is parallel to either; but he argues that “slavery itself (in every form) is inconsistent with the law of nature deducible from Scripture, and therefore with the will of God;” and that, therefore, “much more so are the cruelties of West India slavery, and the African slave trade.” Slavery, he further remarks, “even in its mildest sense, considered as unlimited, involuntary, uncompensated subjection to the service of another, is a total annihilation of all natural rights.” This forcible abduction of liberty, he contends, is inconsistent with the natural rights of society, as deducible from Scripture. In God’s first commission to man he gave him dominion over the brute creation; but there is no expression by which Adam or any of his posterity could collect that they had a right of dominion over their own species. The extent of this primary charter, remarks the Bishop, cannot be more forcibly expressed than in the language of our great poet:

To those advocates of slavery who would use in its favour the golden rule of doing as we would be done by, the Bishop in reply exclaims,

“Detestable perversion ... of the most benevolent of all precepts!” Yet there is one very obvious view, he adds, in which the precept applies to the case of slavery; “for as no person would wish to be reduced to slavery or to continue so, no person whatever should reduce, a fellow-creature to slavery or keep him in that condition.” “The precept may enjoin the submission of the slave to his master, but it does not enjoin slavery: it neither makes the occasion nor justifies it. Submission is a virtue in a slave; but the exercise of this virtue neither justifies the making of slaves nor the keeping of them. Offences must come, and injustice will prevail; but woe be to them by whom the offences come! It should not be forgotten that, if the precept enjoins submission in the slave, it applies doubly to the master; for it enjoins humanity in the treatment of his slaves, AND CONDEMNS HIM FOR KEEPING THEM AT ALL.”

That the slaves are in a happier condition, and “far better off than the British peasantry,” is another old argument, which has of late been newly furbished; and the Bishop of Salisbury well replies to it, as well as to the absurd opinion, that where there is no positive physical cruelty, (and would there were nothing even of this!) there is nothing to complain of.

“If no other circumstance could be proved,” says the Bishop, “yet the mere privation of liberty, and compulsion to labour without compensation, is great cruelty and oppression. If no other fault could be alleged, the involuntary submission of so many thousands to a few individuals implies, beyond a doubt, the employment of means the most tyrannical and oppressive to secure such subjection.” “The condition of West India slaves,” he continues, “some of the apologists for slavery have endeavoured to recommend, by asserting that the slaves are happier than the poor of our own country. However inadvertently this opinion may have been admitted by many, it could have originated only from the possession of inordinate authority and insensibility to the blessings of a free country. Where the poor slaves are considered mere brutes of burden, it is no wonder that their happiness should be measured by the regular supply of mere animal subsistence. But the miseries of cold and want are light when compared with the miseries of a mind weighed down by irresistible oppression. The hardships of poverty are every day endured by thousands in this country for the sake of that liberty which the advocates of slavery think of so little value in their estimation of others’ happiness, rather than relinquish their right to their own time, their own hovel, and their own scanty property, to become the pensioners of a parish. And yet an English poor-house has advantages of indulgence and protection which are incompatible with the most humane system of West India slavery. To place the two situations of the English poor and West India slaves in any degree of comparison, is a defamation of our laws, and an insult to the genius of our country.”

The Bishop goes on to point out that “the inconsistency between slavery and the slave trade, and the general principles of our law and constitution; between the permission of such usages and our high pretensions to civil liberty; appears to furnish arguments for the abolition of slavery, not less powerful on the one hand, than the injunctions of Scripture and the rights of nature on the other.” “If slavery, however modified, is suffered to exist, British law cannot be in force. Why then attempt to modify what is in its very principle inhuman, unchristian, and inconsistent with British law, and the spirit of our constitution; and which, however its concomitant circumstances might be diminished, could never be rendered not inhuman, not unchristian, not unconstitutional? If justice to our nature, to our religion, and our country demand the sacrifice, why should an act of such accumulated duty be done by halves? Why not rather, by one generous effort of public virtue, cut off all occasion of inhumanity and oppression, with all 437the pernicious effects of slavery on the slave, the master, and the state?” “Even if the experience of two centuries did not forbid us to suppose that the abuses, as they are called, of slavery and the slave trade, could be effectually checked and prevented by legal authority, yet the very nature of the offence complained of resists the supposition. Oppression, cruelty, the degradation of the human species, and repugnance of the British constitution, are evils inseparable from slavery and the slave trade.”

The Bishop even apprehends injury to the mother country, by the baneful reaction of her colonial slave system. He dreads the influence of West Indian residents on their return to England. “The air even of this land of liberty,” he remarks, “may not be able to dissipate their West Indian habits of absolute dominion.”

With these views of the subject, our readers cannot wonder that the Bishop maintains, that “no British subject can be exempt from the duty of doing every thing in his power towards procuring the abolition both of West Indian slavery and the slave trade; customs in every way repugnant to religion, humanity, and freedom.” He particularly urges the subject upon his brethren of the sacred order.—The clergy, it seems, had been reproached by the West Indian party for their zealous efforts for the abolition of the slave trade and slavery.

The Bishop vindicates them; remarking, that if no British subject is “exempt from the duty of doing every thing in his power towards preventing the continuance of so great a political as well as moral evil, more especially are not those subjects whose business it is to teach what it is every man’s concern to know; the interpreters of God’s word, which is so flagrantly violated by West Indian slavery and its consequences.” “Instead of wishing to restrain the exertions of any order of men or individuals, in this cause of human nature, let us rather of all ranks, professions and persuasions unite—in the name of the common Father of mankind—in the name of Him who died to save us all—in the name of Faith, of Charity, and of Liberty, to implore those who have the power, to extirpate a system of cruelty and oppression which has been so long suffered to exist, to the dishonour of human nature, the discredit of a Christian nation, of a generous and enlightened people, and the disgrace of a free constitution!”

“Whether,” observes the good Bishop, “all the cruelties imputed to the slave trade, and to Slavery, can or cannot be substantiated; whether the cruelties complained of can be mitigated or not; the very existence of slavery, as long as it is permitted, must be a heavy reproach to this country, and a discredit to the age which can tolerate it.” “Whatever a Machiavellian in politics or commerce” may urge to the contrary, “slavery ought to be abolished, because inconsistent with the will of God.” It is not a question, he contends, to be argued merely by statesmen and publicists, but the “natural and scriptural illegality” of slavery may be judged of “on grounds infinitely superior to all commercial considerations (as much superior as the soul is to the body, as the interests of eternity are to the concerns of a day,) by every one that can feel for his fellow creatures, and can be determined by every one that can read the Scriptures.” And, adds his lordship, whatever opposition may be made by interested persons for a time, “we cannot doubt that the great principles of political justice which form the basis of our constitution, and which ought to come home to the breast of every British subject, will have their full weight in the deliberations of those august assemblies which are to decide on a cause that involves the purity of our holy religion, and the credit and consistency of our national character.”

Forty years of most opprobrious supineness and indifference have passed over our heads since the pious Bishop made this manly and forcible appeal to the national conscience. We trust, that now, in the evening of his days, he may have an opportunity of sealing, by an effective vote, the final extinction of the evil which, in earlier life, he so powerfully exposed.

The character of Granville Sharpe is too well known to require any prefatory observations. A reference to his authority may form no unappropriate supplement to the extracts we have given from the pamphlet of the Bishop of Salisbury, who was the friend and the fellow labourer of that great philanthropist. In the year 1788, Granville Sharpe published a work entitled, “The Law of Retribution, or a Serious Warning to Great Britain and her Colonies, founded on unquestionable examples of God’s temporal vengeance against tyrants, slave-holders, and oppressors.” He commences his warning with the following passage of Scripture:—

“The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy; yea, they have oppressed the stranger wrongfully, and I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none. Therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them; I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath: their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord God.” Ezekiel xxii. 29-31.

Towards the conclusion of the work, after applying and repeating this text, he thus addresses the Right Reverend the Bench of Bishops:

“And have not the inhabitants of Great Britain and her Colonies, just reason to expect a similar vengeance for the like oppressions? Do they flatter themselves that the same God will permit them to go on without recompensing their ‘own way’ upon their heads? Slavery for Slavery? Or have they forgot, that the God of Israel, who thus reproved his peculiar people for holding their brethren in bondage, is the same ‘Lord God’ with whom we have to do? And that he is unchangeable? How would our rulers and chief men bear a repetition of this unchangeable word in the presence of God, when the Books are opened for judgment:—‘I sought for a man among them that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none!’ May I not say, that even ‘backsliding Israel’ shall ‘rise up in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it?’ As ‘the backsliding Israel hath justified herself more than treacherous Judah,’ (Jer. iii. 11.) so she hath surely ‘justified herself more than’ Britain! for when the measure of her iniquity seemed to be filled by that notorious act of oppression in the reign of Pekah before mentioned, there were yet found in her four worthy advocates ‘to stand in the gap before God for the Land;’ even four ‘chiefs’ (or Nobles) ‘of the children of Ephraim,’ who boldly protested against the horrid crime of domestic slavery. But Great Britain, though staggering under a much heavier load of the same kind of guilt has not proºduced, out of her numerous Peerage, one single chief to stand up ‘for the land,’ and remove her burden! Mark this ye Right Reverend Fathers of our Church, who sit with the Princes of the Realm to consult the welfare of the state! Think not that I am inclined through any misguided prejudice to charge your order, in particular, with the omission. The crying sin has hitherto been far distant from your sight, and perhaps was never fully represented to you, or like faithful watchmen of Israel, you would long ago have warned our nation of the danger: but I now call upon you, in the name of God, for assistance! Ye know the Scriptures, and therefore to you, my Lords, in particular I appeal! If I have misrepresented the word of God, on which my opposition to slavery is founded, point out my errors, and I submit: but if, on the other hand, you should perceive that the texts here quoted are really applicable to the question before us, that my conclusions from thence are fairly drawn, and that the examples of God’s vengeance against tyrants and slave-holders ought strictly to warn us against similar oppressions and similar vengeance, you will not then, I trust, be backward in this cause of God and Man. Stand up (let me entreat you) ‘for the land; make up the hedge,’ to save your country; perhaps it 439is not yet too late! Enter a solemn protest, my Lords, against those who ‘have oppressed the stranger wrongfully.’ Ye know that the testimonies I have quoted are of God! Warn, therefore, the nobles and Senators of these Kingdoms, that they incur not a double load of guilt; as the burden, not only of the much injured African strangers, but also of our country’s ruin, must rest on the heads of those who withhold their testimony against the crying sin of tolerated slavery! For ‘I know that the Lord will maintain the cause of the afflicted, and the right of the poor.’” Ps. cxl. 12.

Berbice has been one of the colonies which has boasted the most of its humanity, but which, to say the least, has been not less distinguished for its cruelties than the other colonies. Its Memorial to the Privy Council, in 1827, was loud in professions of tenderness for the feelings of the slaves, notwithstanding the recency of those reports of its Fiscal which filled this country with horror. (See Reporters, Nos. 5 and 16.) Later reports from this colony continue, as may be seen in the Anti-Slavery Reporter, No. 43, to be marked by the same disgusting characters of brutal ferocity and of callous indifference to negro comfort as the former. And an occurrence, which has taken place there so recently as November last, will plainly shew how little amendment in the state of the slaves in that colony has been derived from the Order in Council.

A colonist, of the name of Gallez, who is himself of mixed blood, was the proprietor of a large body of slaves. He had prevailed on these slaves to agree, though most reluctantly, to accompany him to a wood-cutting establishment, called Catherinasburgh, which he formed in the interior about sixty or seventy miles up the Canye river, and far removed, therefore, from other plantations. The situation, however, was healthy, provision-grounds were abundant, and the water was of the finest kind. Mr. Gallez had also shewn a wish to procure religious instruction for his slaves, and to introduce marriage among them. His extraction created a sympathy with them; and he is said to have lived among them as a father. This is the account of one who does not altogether judge by the colonial standard of paternity. He erected good houses for them; allotted them fertile grounds; and as he conducted his wood-cutting in the way of moderate task, they had time to labour for themselves, and were living in abundance. They seem almost to have realized the picture drawn by Dr. Pinkard, of the Profit plantation in his time, though, unhappily, they now share the fate of the Profit negroes.—Mr. Gallez had embarked in some speculations which involved him in pecuniary difficulties, and by an order of the Court of Justice, his slaves were placed under sequestration, and a certain portion of them, (not the whole together, and along with the plantation, but a part of them,) was marked out for sale in November last. No previous inquiry seems to have been made into their circumstances, in order to avoid dissevering the ties of kindred and affection. But a peremptory mandate required that they should quit their houses, their fields, their connexions, and appear at New Amsterdam on the specified day to be exposed to sale, in lots, to the best bidder. When this mandate, which was wholly unexpected by them, was communicated to the slaves, by the officers of the Court, who went to seize 440and bring to sale their destined victims, the whole gang, amounting to upwards of two hundred, retired into the almost impenetrable woods which surround the plantation; so that the seizure became impossible. When the officers returned to town, and reported the circumstance, the affair was magnified into a serious insurrection, which, if unsubdued, would spread fire and sword through the colony; and the cry arose for prompt military execution on the daring rebels, and for the arrest and punishment of Mr. Gallez himself, who, it was then remembered to his disadvantage, had been favourable to religious instruction, to marriage, and other reforms; and who, it was therefore assumed as a matter of course, must, like the murdered missionary Smith, have been the fomenter of the insurrection. Urgent application was made for a military detachment to be immediately sent to avert the danger, and this course would, probably, have been pursued, had not the Governor been led to see the propriety of first trying the effect of civil interference. Accordingly, the Fiscal, the Protector of slaves, and some others, were sent to the spot in order to induce their quiet submission. These gentlemen accordingly proceeded to Catherinasburgh; and on their arrival, the whole of the slaves readily appeared before them. It was explained to them that the debts of their master had led to the order of Court for taking a portion of them from the rest, and from their houses and grounds, and selling them; and that the law, they must be aware, could not be resisted without bringing ruin on themselves and their families. The slaves ably and feelingly stated their case. They pointed to the superior comforts they possessed over those living on the sugar and coffee estates below. They pleaded also their services to the colony in rooting out a maroon town some time back, for which medals had been bestowed on them by the Government. All this was admitted, but it was urged in reply, that their master was the real author of the evil, by having made them over to his creditors, and no remedy could now be applied. After some farther discussion, the poor creatures agreed to submit to their fate; and, in three or four days, they were embarked on board boats, and carried to the place of sale. The parting scene would beggar description. Those who were doomed to the hammer and to be scattered over the colony, as well as those who remained, were equally loud and vociferous in their wailing, so that even the whites, who were present, felt the infection of their grief.

What a picture of slavery in its best state! We trust we shall have the official details of this transaction, laid on the table of Parliament. In the mean time, is it irrelevant to remark, that the atrocity, in this case, is the result, not of individual oppression, but of the iniquity of the colonial law, and that, in a colony where his Majesty, by his ministers, is the sole legislator; and into which these ministers have recently introduced what is called an improved slave code? The present slave law of Berbice has emanated from the Crown, and yet, under that law, with all its professed designs of amelioration and protection, we here see the wretched, helpless, and degraded state in which it has still left the subjects of the King;—beasts of the field, chattels, bereft of every civil and social, and even domestic, right; and though endowed with the faculties and capacities, and heirs to the common destinies 441of men, yet depressed, by the very law which ought to protect them, to the level of the brutes that perish. Is not such legislation a mockery of the very name of law? Or can such legislation be considered as a redemption of the solemn pledge given by his Majesty’s Government and Parliament in 1823? And what hope can we indulge, that in colonies having legislatures of their own, we shall witness any other than a delusive shew of improvement, while such examples as these are furnished in colonies directly governed by the Crown itself? We would entreat our readers to look at Berbice as it stands painted, not in our statements, but in the simple and unsophisticated details of its own Fiscal, (see Reporter, No. 5, and No. 16) and again of its Protector, even in the last year, (see No. 43,) and, combining these details with the transaction of which we have now given a brief account, to say whether such a state of things can be endured? We call especially on the ministers of the Crown to look calmly at these facts, and to say, whether they are not responsible, if not for the existence, at least for the continuance for a single day longer, of such tremendous evils?

The occurrences in Berbice are only inferior in atrocity to the horrors of the Mauritius. And wherein does the state of slavery of Berbice differ from that of our other West India colonies, but in our having happily obtained thence those details which are carefully withheld from us in almost every other case? Let us obtain similar details from the other colonies, and we shall find them to exhibit the same state of legal oppression, the same affecting accumulation of individual misery as exists in Berbice. Mr. Dwarris, indeed, vaunts loudly of improvement in the colonies. Improvement! The pretence to it, in the face of such facts, is an insult to common sense; and the improvement, we fear, is to be found mainly, if not solely, in the increased obtuseness and callousness of feeling, which those must acquire who are the hourly spectators and actors in this grand theatre of crime.

1. Colonial Policy.

In the Jamaica Gazette of the 20th of December, 1828, is inserted a letter from London, dated no longer ago than November last, in which the writer seems to be thinking aloud, unconscious of the presence of any anti-slavery auditor.

“This critical state of affairs,” (he says, alluding to Ireland,) “together with the threatening aspect which Europe is assuming, will no doubt tend to divert public attention from the Colonial Question, at least during the next session; and let us hope, that, by the time these matters are settled, others will arise to engage the good people of England in the laudable task of minding and mending their own affairs, instead of quacking with the colonies! Of course, we must expect the annual repetition of some of the rigmarole philippics of Buxton, Brougham, or Lushington, but these carry with them little terror now. The party are evidently losing ground—the mania has gone by—it is no longer a successful theme for popular declamation, and, although I cannot say any decided reaction has taken place in the public mind, yet the fervid zeal has settled down into calm indifference.

“The bulk of the people are passive on the subject, and I am persuaded will remain so. They are quite satiated with colonial horrors. The rancour of our enemies continues, and will continue, unabated, but their influence is considerably 442modified. No doubt, they will still trump up annual petitions against slavery, but these are no longer considered the criterion of public opinion, and have consequently no influence with Government. It is quite amusing to witness the despicable arts the anti-colonists resort to, in order to obtain signatures to these insidious memorials. In some places they have a table in the open street, on which the paper is laid, and the labouring classes, in returning from work, are solicited to affix their names, with so much suavity of manner—such bland persuasiveness, that there is no resisting, and many of the creatures, who are thus entrapped, do not even know the object of the paper they are signing. I heard of one fellow, who, in haranguing a mob collected round one of their tables, actually expatiated on the enormity of continuing the slave trade,” (and is not a slave trade carried on in Jamaica?) “and urged his colleagues to sign the petition, which was to put an end to this inhuman traffic! and really the ignorance of even the well-informed classes, on this subject, is quite astonishing.

“Our object ought to be” (and doubtless is in all their measures) “to gain time, for, the longer the main question is delayed, the better it will be understood by the British public, and the more likely they will be to be influenced by principle rather than by passion and prejudice in their decision. This object would be more effectually secured, and our adversaries more completely disarmed, if the Colonial Assemblies would, from time to time, engage themselves in correcting the old abuses in the system, and in making such improvements as would be commensurate with the advancement of the slaves in the scale of civilization.” (This we have always said has been their policy.)

“Of course it has not transpired here what instructions have been sent out to Sir John Keane as to the rejected Slave Bill; but I trust the odious mandate, which gave such offence last year has been rescinded, and that our House of Assembly have repassed the bill in its original form.” (Precisely what they have done.) “The West Indians here are in high spirits about the appointment of the new Governor—they expect great things from him, judging by his general character. It was intended that he should go out in time to open the Assembly, but, as this could not be accomplished in time, he will not, I understand, sail till the end of November.”

2. Persecution of Missionaries.

The Assembly of Jamaica appear to have acted in strict conformity with the above suggestions. The disallowed slave law of 1826, has been re-enacted without the change of a single clause. The object in doing so is evidently to gain time, trusting to the chapter of accidents for future occasions of delay. It being expedient, however, to supply some reasons for so directly flying in the face of His Majesty’s Government, as to re-enact verbatim et literatim the persecuting clauses of 1826, which were directed to the suppression of the missions of methodists and dissenters, and to the consequent exclusion of the slaves from effective religious instruction, the assembly, in its wisdom, has had recourse as usual to the getting up of such ex-parte statements as the case seemed to call for, and which there never is any difficulty of procuring in Jamaica. And here we do them the justice to believe, that they had too much good sense to expect, that the statements thus prepared would be received in this country as evidence in proof of their charges against the missionaries. It was quite enough that they served to give a colour to the contumacious re-enactment of the rejected clauses. Accordingly a Committee of the House of Assembly was appointed “to inquire into the establishment and proceedings of the Sectaries in the Island, and to report thereon to the House.” The report of this Committee, with the evidence annexed, was presented on the 23d of December, 1828. It was to the following effect;

443“Mr. Speaker,—Your Committee, appointed to inquire into the establishment and proceedings of the Sectarians in this island,

“Report—That they have taken the examinations of sundry persons, which examinations are hereto annexed, and find that the principal object of the Sectarians in this island is to extort money from their congregations by every possible pretext, to obtain which, recourse has been had to the most indecent expedients.

“That in order to further this object, and to gain an ascendancy over the negro mind, they inculcate the doctrines of equality and the rights of man—they preach and teach sedition, even from the pulpit, and by misrepresentation and falsehood endeavour to cast odium upon all the public authorities of this island, not even excepting the representative of majesty itself.

“That the consequences have been abject poverty, loss of comfort, and discontent among the slaves frequenting their chapels, and deterioration of property to their masters.

“Your committee therefore feel themselves bound to report—That the interference of the missionaries between the master and slave is dangerous, and incompatible with the political state of society in this island, and recommend to the house to adopt the most positive and exemplary enactments to restrain them.

“The above report was referred to the Committee on the state of the Island, and the house went in such Committee; and being resumed, Resolutions from that Committee were reported and agreed to, as follows:

“1. That it be recommended to the House to agree to the Report from the Committee appointed to inquire into the establishment of the Sectarians in this island, presented to the House, with the addition of laying before the house the examination of Mr. Samuel Bromley, a Baptist Minister, residing at St. Ann’s Bay, respecting an instance stated by him to have occurred, of a master oppressing his slave for attending the Baptist chapel, as it will exhibit the manner in which he is disposed to treat the legitimate authority of the house, delegated to its Committee, and they recommend it to the serious consideration of the house.

“2. That it be recommended to the house to come to the following Resolution:

“Resolved, that the conduct of Samuel Bromley, a Baptist Missionary, in refusing to answer certain questions put to him, while under examination before a Committee of this house, and in refusing to sign his deposition before such Committee, is a breach of the privileges of this house.

“3. That it be recommended to the house to agree to the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the establishment and proceedings of the Sectarians, presented to the house this day.

“4. That it be recommended to the house to come to the following Resolution:

“Resolved, That a copy of the Report of the Committee, appointed to inquire into the establishment and proceedings of the Sectarians, and the examinations taken before them, be forwarded to the Agent, with instructions to lay the same before his Majesty’s Ministers, together with a copy of the 83d, 84th, and 85th clauses of the Slave Law,” (viz. the persecuting clauses,) “disallowed in 1827, and that the said Report and examinations and clauses be printed and distributed by the Agent.”

These were followed by a farther resolution, “That Samuel Bromley, Baptist Missionary, having been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this house, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at arms, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly.”

We shall of course have an opportunity of soon seeing the evidence which is to establish the immoral and destructive tendency of the labours of the missionaries. In the mean time, it is plain from what has transpired of it, in the columns of the Jamaica Newspapers, that it bears the character of fabrication on its very front; and some of the journalists have the boldness to affirm that it originates in the most unprincipled hostility to religious instruction, and is supported by the most unblushing perjury. And are the religious bodies quietly to submit to such proceedings? Are they to have their chapels demolished, their missionaries 444imprisoned in loathsome dungeons till disease has killed them, and their characters falsely and iniquitously and inhumanly traduced, and yet be silent? It may be questioned, whether, had they acted with becoming firmness on former occasions, and made the appeal which became them to the authorities of the state, the evils which now threaten the suppression of their missions might not have been averted. In any case, they seem now bound, if they would not be accessories to crime, to assert the rights, and protect the persons, nay the very lives of their missionaries; and above all to vindicate, to the wretched slaves, the privilege of freely hearing the word of God, and of worshipping and serving Him in peace. Is there any consideration which can induce them to protect themselves and their congregations against insult and injury, and intolerance, and persecution, in this country, which does not render it still more imperiously their duty to put forth their whole energies in shielding their helpless and unprotected brethren, in the Colonies, from the arm of the persecutor? If they shrink from this duty theirs will be the responsibility!

A Society has been formed under the patronage of the Governor, “for aiding deserving slaves and slave children to purchase their freedom.”

The circumstance of a family of slaves in Cape Town having been assisted in obtaining their freedom by the pecuniary aid of a few benevolent individuals, suggested the benefits which might result from the formation of a society for such and similar purposes.

To carry this into effect, a meeting of some friends to the object took place on the 27th of June, 1828, when a few resolutions were passed, a list opened, and a provisional committee appointed to receive subscriptions, and prepare for a general meeting of subscribers, which was held on the 24th of July.

Besides the necessary organization of the Society, the resolutions then adopted prescribe that young female slaves shall be emancipated in preference to others; and that a preference shall also be given to slaves who are members of a Christian community.

Subscriptions are solicited from England and India. We have no room for any extracts from the Address: what we have said will shew the general character and purposes of the institution. The Address itself certainly partakes more of the peculiarity of colonial logic, and sympathizes more with the feelings and prejudices of slave-holders than suits our taste or judgment. At the same time, we must leave men to do good in their own way, only taking care that, in aiding or countenancing their benevolence, we do not compromise our own principles, or give a sanction to theirs, whereinsoever they fall short of the standard of right.

It appears that the Society had succeeded in redeeming six individuals.

Erratum in No. 45, p. 419, l. 5 and 12, for Archbishop Manners, read Manners Sutton.