ANTI-SLAVERY
                           MONTHLY REPORTER.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

      No. 46.]         FOR MARCH, 1829.         [No. 22. Vol. ii.

  --------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

                      ═══════════════════════════


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

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. They
    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]

Footnote 1:

  The poet Cowper seems to have entertained much the same opinion as the
  Bishop of Salisbury; for in one of his Letters, dated April, 1788, we
  find him saying: “Laws will, I suppose, be enacted for the more humane
  treatment of the Negroes; but who shall see to the execution of them?
  The planters will not, and the Negroes cannot. In fact, we know that
  laws of this tendency have not been wanting, enacted even amongst
  themselves; but there has been always a want of prosecutors, or
  righteous judges, deficiencies which will not be very easily supplied.
  The newspapers have lately told us, that these merciful masters, have
  on this occasion, been occupied in passing ordinances, by which the
  lives and limbs of their slaves are to be secured from wanton cruelty
  hereafter. But who does not immediately detect the artifice, or can
  give them a moment’s credit for any thing more than a design, by this
  show of lenity to avert the storm which they think hangs over them? On
  the whole, I fear there is reason to wish, for the honour of England,
  that the nuisance had never been troubled; lest we eventually make
  ourselves justly chargeable with the whole offence by not removing it.
  The enormity cannot be palliated: we can no longer plead that we were
  not aware of it, or that our attention was otherwise engaged; and
  shall be inexcusable, therefore, ourselves, if we leave the least part
  of it unredressed. Such arguments as Pharaoh might have used, to
  justify his destruction of the Israelites, substituting sugar for
  bricks, (‘ye are idle; ye are idle,’) may lie ready for our use also;
  but I think we can find no better.”

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, and
    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:

                O execrable son, so to aspire
                Above his brother! to himself assuming
                Authority usurped, from God not given.
                He gave us only over beasts, flesh, fowl,
                Dominion absolute. That right we hold
                By his donation: but man over man
                He made not lord; such title to himself
                Reserving, human left from human free.

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 the
    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.


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

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
    is 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.


                    3. FRESH ATROCITIES IN BERBICE.

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 and 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 of 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.


                  4. RECENT INTELLIGENCE FROM JAMAICA.


                         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
    modified. 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;

    “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 imprisoned 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!


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

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_.

                  ------------------------------------

      Printed by Bagster and Thoms, 14, Bartholomew Close, London.


------------------------------------------------------------------------




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ Missing or obscured punctuation was silently corrected.
    ○ Typographical errors were silently corrected.
    ○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
      when a predominant form was found in this book.
    ○ Text that:
      was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_);
      was in bold by is enclosed by “equal” signs (=bold=)
      .