THE

ANTI-SLAVERY REPORTER.

No. 72.]

DECEMBER 1, 1830.

[Vol. iii. No. 24.

The "ANTI-SLAVERY MONTHLY REPORTER" will be forwarded to any AntiSlavery Society, at the rate of four Shillings per hundred, when not exceeding half a sheet, and in proportion, when it exceeds that quantity, on application at the Society's office, No. 18, Aldermanbury. Single Copies may be had of all booksellers and newsmen, at the rate of 1d. per half-sheet of eight pages.

REPLY TO AN ATTACK ON THE ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, CONTAINED IN A PAMPHLET BY THE RIGHT HONOURABLE R.WILMOT HORTON, ENTITLED, "FIRST LETTER TO THE FREEHOLDERS OF THE COUNTY OF YORK, ON NEGRO SLAVERY," &c.

A PAMPHLET has recently appeared, from the pen of the Right Hon. R. Wilmot Horton, late Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, bearing this title:-"First Letter to the Freeholders of the County of York, on Negro Slavery; being an Inquiry into the Claims of the West Indians for equitable Compensation." We are induced to notice this pamphlet, chiefly on account of the authority which may be thought to attach to it, in consequence of the official situation which its author filled so long, and which naturally gave him a ready access to the best sources of information. But for this circumstance it would hardly have called for animadversion, as it is no more than a reimpression, slightly altered to suit existing circumstances, of a former pamphlet published by him in 1826, and placed on their list by the Colonial Committee, entitled "The West India Question practically considered." The two pamphlets are marked, as we might expect, by the same characteristic peculiarities. They are employed either in laboriously proving admitted truths; or in eagerly combating mere shadows, the creation of the author's own fancy.

With respect to the former point, we need only to repeat what we said on the publication of the first of these two pamphlets, in 1826, (see Anti-Slavery Reporter, No. 11, p. 168.)-that the author might have spared all the pains he has taken to convince the world that the views now entertained by the leading abolitionists on the subject of the necessity and expediency of legislative interference, with respect to colonial slavery, have undergone a great change since 1792, and even since 1807. This fact is so far from having been denied, that it has been fully and freely admitted. Nay, it stands prominently forward as the very ground on which, in 1823, the men of 1792 and of 1807 formed themselves into a Society, for the avowed purpose of abolishing slavery in every part of the British dominions.* But, (we then asked, as we now ask again) if the abolitionists formerly

See substance of the Debate of the 15th of May, 1823. Preface, pp. 10, 11.

placed an unwarranted and too liberal confidence in the purposes of the colonists to improve the condition of their slaves, are they, or are those who have entered into their labours to be blamed, as wanting either in consistency or in good faith, because the painful experience of twenty-three years has satisfied them that their confidence was misplaced, and that all hope of improvement in the condition of the slave, and still more, all hope of his emancipation, except from parliamentary interference, has become vain and illusory? On this point, therefore, the author may now, as in 1826, enjoy his fancied victory undisturbed by any denial. We plead guilty; and we feel no shame in the avowal.

Again, with respect to the author's charge against the abolitionists of departing from the compact, by which he alleges they bound themselves, to abide by the resolutions of the 15th of May, 1823, he has entirely overlooked the circumstance that they, one and all, protested, at the time, against committing the work of reformation to the Colonial Assemblies, and only forbore from pressing the matter to a division, in consequence of the deliberate promise of the Government, that in case those assemblies refused to comply with the wishes of parliament, the interference of parliament would unquestionably be applied for. We here allude not merely to Mr. Canning's speech on that occasion, published and accredited by Lord Bathurst, in his circular addressed to the colonial governors on the 28th of May, 1823, but to the following passage in the subsequent despatch of the 9th of July, 1823, which may probably have proceeded from the pen of the right hon. gentleman himself." In conclusion, I have most earnestly to impress upon you the necessity of proceeding to carry these improvements into effect, not only with all possible dispatch, but in the spirit of perfect and cordial co-operation with the efforts of his Majesty's government ;"-" and if (which I am unwilling to imagine) you should meet with any serious opposition, you will lose no time in transmitting to me the necessary communication, in order that I may take the earliest opportunity of laying the matter before parliament, and submitting for their consideration such measures as it may be fit to adopt in consequence."

Has, then, the compact of 1823 been violated? It undoubtedly has --and we think that on the ministers of the crown rests the guilt of its violation, not exempting from a share of that guilt the right hon. gentleman himself. Nor is our estimate of its amount at all lessened by reverting to the fallacious statements, whencesoever derived, which were officially laid before parliament by Mr. Canning, and more particularly in March 1826, on the subject of colonial reform; and which were so fully exposed at the time in the Reporters, Nos. 10 and 11.

The author will not deny that, in 1823, a solemn engagement was entered into by government, to adopt "determined and vigorous" measures, for accomplishing, "at the earliest period," the emancipation of the slaves, in other words, the words of the resolution, " their participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of his Majesty's subjects." He cannot deny this.-Does he then blame the abolitionists, for insisting on the fulfilment of this pledge, and

Was

for complaining of its forfeiture on his part and that of his associates? No, not entirely so: but he blames them for doing this “ WITHOUT EQUITABLE COMPENSATION." We distinctly deny this charge; and we call upon him to say whether he or any of the members of government ever brought forward any proposition for equitable compensation which was resisted by the abolitionists. Had not he and his colleagues forcibly taken the matter out of Mr. Buxton's hands? it not for them to have adopted the means of fulfilling their own pledges? Was it Mr. Buxton's part or theirs to have done this? Or were they ever prevented by him, or by any one of his friends, from propounding what might appear to them equitable, with a view to the accomplishment of the great purpose to which they had so solemnly bound themselves? So far from it, the abolitionists often and in vain urged the government to do so at whatever cost. This was the burden of almost every Anti-Slavery petition addressed to parliament from one end of the kingdom to the other. Even the AntiSlavery Society itself, in its petition of 1826, professed its perfect readiness, if called upon to contribute whatever sum might be deemed necessary to the extinction of slavery, cheerfully to obey the call.

And yet, will it be believed, that after all this, in 1830, the right hon. gentleman should write a pamphlet, to denounce the AntiSlavery party as men of bad faith, as men guilty of violating their compact with government and the planters, in demanding abolition. without compensation!!

His proof of this charge is sufficiently whimsical, and not a little characteristic. He places in the title-page, as his motto, a passage in which the Anti-Slavery Society fully recognizes the right of the planters to prefer, and, by adequate proof, to establish their claim to indemnity. The whole of the passage from which he has drawn his motto, is as follows:

"It is by no means intended to attribute the existence and continuance of this most opprobrious system to our Colonies exclusively. On the contrary, the guilt and shame arising from it belong in perhaps an equal degree to the people and parliament of this country. But on that very account are we the more rigidly bound to lose no time in investigating the state of colonial bondage, and in adopting such measures as shall bring it to the earliest termination which is compatible with the well-being of the parties who sustain its grievous yoke.

"But, besides our paramount and indispensable obligations, on moral and religious grounds, to relieve our colonial bondsmen from the cruel and degrading state to which we have reduced them, and to remedy as far as we can the numberless wrongs of which we have been the criminal authors; it is further due to the character of Great Britain, in the eyes of foreign nations, that we should act agreeably to the principles which, in our discussions with them relative to the African Slave Trade, we have professed to make the basis of our representations. It would be vain to expect that they should regard those professions as otherwise than insincere, or that they should defer to our representations, however urgent, if we exhibit in our own conduct the glaring inconsistency of sanctioning as legal, in our own dominions, practices of the very same nature, in effect, with those which we reprobate and denounce as immoral, inhuman, and unjust, when they occur on the coast of Africa.

"It is therefore our clear and indisputable duty completely to reform our present colonial system, even if it should require a large pecuniary sacrifice to

accomplish that object. But the proposed change, we believe, is prescribed to us not more by moral and religious principle, than by the soundest views of poltical expediency. In the present advanced state of knowledge, it can no longer be a question that the labour of slaves is much less profitable than that of freemen, and that it can only be supported at a very heavy expense to the community at large. In proof of this, it will be sufficient to adduce the protecting duties and bounties afforded to the growers of sugar in the West Indies; and without which they declare it would be impossible for them to continue its culture. Indeed, we are persuaded that no institution which is directly at variance with the will of the Supreme Governor of the Universe can prove a source of permanent advantage either to nations or individuals. And, in the present case, it might be clearly demonstrated, that the personal slavery which deforms the face of society in the British colonies, and stains the British character, is as detrimental to the interests of the slave-owner as it is cruel and oppressive to the slave; and that its abolition, instead of proving an injury to either, will prove an unspeakable benefit to both.

"The Colonists say, that they shall sustain a great actual loss by the proposed change of system. If so, they will of course have an opportunity of preferring and establishing their claim to indemnity. But, whatever the extent of that claim may be proved to be, it is obvious that it attaches not to the negro bondsman, but to the British nation. It would be repugnant to every idea of equity, if we were to discharge any debt we may owe to the colonists, not from our own resources, but with the toil and sweat and blood of our African brethren.

"But, in whatever degree it may be found necessary to indemnify the colonists for any loss which may arise to them from the abolition of negro slavery, yet, while that state of society continues unchanged, there will be an insuperable objection in the mind of every conscientious individual to the adoption of any measures of pecuniary relief, by means of protecting duties or bounties on their produce, or otherwise; because it is obvious that such measures, however modified, would involve the people of this country in the farther guilt.of upholding a system which, when the facts of the case are known, it is impossible not to feel to be utterly repugnant to the principles of justice and humanity, and to the whole spirit of Christianity."

But this clear and unambiguous declaration, the right hon. gentleman may allege, was published in April 1823. We admit it. But then we have it in our power to lay before him a second edition of the same paper, which has furnished him with his motto, entitled, "A brief View of the Nature and Effects of Negro Slavery, as it exists in the Colonies of Great Britain," and which bears date, not in April, 1823, but on the 1st of October, 1830. Now this paper, which has been circulated very largely throughout all parts of the kingdom, though it contains statements varying in some respects from those contained in the former edition, in consequence of the intermediate changes which have taken place in the laws of slavery, yet gives the above passage without a single material variation. Indeed the only variation consists in the omission of these words in the first paragraph of the extract, "in investigating the state of colonial bondage, and;" it being justly thought that the work of investigation has now been sufficiently fulfilled.

And yet in the face of this apparently overwhelming evidence, to which much more might be added in corroboration, the right hon. gentleman comes forward with his "First Letter to the men of Yorkshire," to denounce the abolitionists as denying and resisting the elaim of the planters to equitable compensation, and to establish

against them, by laboured proof, this groundless charge. It is true, they have said nothing as to the amount of compensation; neither has the right hon. gentleman. He has concurred with them, probably, in thinking that that is a point to be settled, neither by the exaggerated claims of the planters, nor by the vehement objections of individual declaimers, but by the sober estimate of an impartial and enlightened tribunal, deciding fairly and dispassionately on the subject according to evidence.

On what ground, then, is it that the right hon. gentleman has contrived to raise a controversy between himself and the Anti-Slavery party on this subject? It is on a ground quite as whimsical and untenable as any we have yet noticed. He assumes it as a principle of his reasoning, that the very call for the early and entire extinction of slavery proves that it is intended, by the parties so calling, to be effected" without equitable compensation." This, we must take leave to say, is a somewhat extravagant, and certainly a most unwarrantable assumption, and yet the whole of his pamphlet is founded upon it. For our own parts, with all respect for the superior sagacity of our author, we cannot discover what difference it can possibly make as to the principle on which the question of equitable compensation rests, whether the abolition shall take place in 1831, or 1841, or 1851. The equity of the matter remains the same on either supposition; and we are utterly unable to divine by what species of logic the right hon. gentleman has arrived at the conclusion, that because Mr. Brougham pledged himself to the Yorkshire Electors "never to cease from his labours till the chains shall have dropped from the hands of the slave ;" and because the Hull Anti-Slavery Society have resolved to call for "the speedy extinction of slavery;" that either Mr. B. or the members of the Hull Society will refuse to concur in any just and reasonable proposition, which he or any other person may bring forward, for carrying into effect that part also of the compact of 1823, which relates to the question of equitable compensation. And yet this speech of Mr. Brougham, and these resolutions of the Hull Society, which are only samples, we admit, of many similar speeches and similar resolutions, form all the ground we can discover for this weighty charge. We doubt whether labour and thought were ever so completely thrown away. Nay, if the author had only taken the trouble to read with ordinary attention the publications of the Society, which for years past, in various ways, it has been his labour to assail; or to look into a few of the thousands of petitions presented to Parliament on the subject, he would not have found there even a single attempt to controvert the position, that equitable compensation to the planter is a fair subject of parliamentary consideration. Nay, in not a few of them, he would have found even liberal offers to bear their share of any indemnity, to which, on investigation, the planters might prove (for with them must the onus probandi rest) that they were equitably entitled.

gen

Such being the state of the question between the right hon. tleman and the special objects of his attack, we think we were perfectly justified in the remark with which we set out, that both this