UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES x. E F E N C E 01* THE BILL I- OR Cbe Begt&ration af ^lati 9082 6 rahan, treet, Londcn. A DEFENCE 0P THE BILL FOR XDe i&estfiratton of ^la\itB, BY JAMES STEPHEN Esq. IN LETTERS TO WILLIAM WILBERFORCE Esq. M.P. LETTER THE SECOND. LONDON: PRINTED FOB J. BUTTERWORTH AND SON, FLEET-STRKBT; AND J. HATCHARD> PICCADILLY. 1816. A LETTER, &c. &c. &c. LETTER ir. >- QC g My dear Wilberforce, ^ T^HE fecond of the four objedions to your bill, under which the various arguments and cla- mours of our opponents were arranged, next demands our notice. They maintain ; " That the meafure is unneceffary,'* . 02 Here they had much to anfwer, before they o could have any right to rail. The report which Qj. they undertook to refute ; your fpeech introductory < of the bill ; their own evidence, fpeeches and colo- nial protefts, during the abolition controveify^ had all furnilhed arguments for the neceflity of a Regifter Bill, which they were bound, in fome way, to repel. But they have one fhort anfwer to all, " The fzGt cp of illicit importation is not proved.*' They reafon 9 as if putting a flop to an exifling flave trade, were X the avowed and fmgle objed of the bill. A To 301062 { ' ) To countenance this evafion, they not only fup- prefs, but interpolate, propofitions, as well as words, in the arguments which they affed to anfwer, and even in the printed Bill itfclf. The AlTembly of Jamaica, for inftance, does not fcruple to mifquote your preamble, and to make it aver, what it does not aver, the exiftence of a con- traband flave trade ; in order to found on this mif- reprefentation a complaint that the preamble is not proved, and is untrue. At once to give a fpecimen of the accuracy of that legiflative body, and to fhew on what propofi- tions of fak the Bill really proceeds, it seems pro- per here to extraft both the preamble itfelf, and the recital of it in the Jamaica Report ; and for the fake of eafier comparifon, I will place them in parallel columns. Printed Bill. Jamaica Report. ' Whereas the illicit and "'The preamble of the clandeftine importation of Bill ajerts the illicit and flaves into Britifti colonies clandeftine importation of wherein flavery is eftabliflied flaves into (/y^^) Britifti co- by law, and the holding and ionics, where flavery is detaining in flavery there eftabliftied by law ; and of fuch Negroes, Mulattoes (that) Negroes Mulattoes, and Muftees (as by reafon and Muftees, who are law- of fuch illicit importation, fully entitled to their free- or dom. ( 3 ) or othcrwife) are lawfully entitled to their freedom, cannot be efFey leading him into dlffipation. By V ( 4 ) By the Englilh law of villeinage, to which the Aflfembly for another purpofe is hardy enough to refer, and from which the writ of homine replegr- ando is taken, the burthen of proof was univerfally laid on the mafter, in whatever way the queftion of villein or free was raifed ; and for this plain reafon, that the legal prefumption was always in favour of freedom*. But the prefumption in the colonies, as to negroes and mulattoes, being the other way, the rule of evi- dence ought to be as univerfally reverfed ; and fo ( I doubt not it aftually is, in Jamaica, when the fa6t of the colour is clear, as it is in every other ifland with the praflice of which I am acquainted. The firfl leflbn that an Englifh lawyer learns when he begins to pradife in their courts, is the nec^ffity of being i prepared to prove the freedom of every black or * " The courts of juilice always prefumed in favor of liberty ; throwing the onus probandi upon the lord, as well in the writ of homine replegiando, where the villein was plaintiff, as in the nat'mo habendoyV}}\ Can ( 54 ) 1805, entitled, *^ An Ad for fixing the mode of trying queftions relative to the freedom pf negroes and other perfons of colour,'* &c. This 3dly, Can a ftronger illuftration of the neceffity of a regifter be defired, than the Aflembly of Jamaica has here furnifhed againft itfelf ? To prove that no new provifion is neceffary for the fecurity of freedom, it ftiews that, in one of the ftrongell cafes imaginable, freedom could not be recovered or protefted under the exifting laws, without a mod tedious, difficult, expen- five, and doubtful litigation ! If Ann Higgins had not found extraordinary refources in the compaffion which the extreme hardfhip of her cafe, and the probable notoriety of her freedom, tended to excite, (he muft have loft her children, if not alfo her own freedom for ever. Befides, let any man read Mr. Burge's account of the laft trial, and then aflc himfelf whether it is upon inveftigations fuch as there defcribed, that the liberty of an individual or a family fhould depend ; i. e. upon conflifting parol evidence of genea- logies, perfonal identities, and names. Had there been a re- giftry in Jamaica, the queftion which was the fubjeft of three trials and fix years of contention, would have been decided in an hovir ; or rather it would never have arifen. Rutherford know- ing that the regifter would at once overthrow his pretended title, would not have praftifed thofe deteftable oppreffions of which the mother and her children were the viAims. The fecond, and only other a6tion of trefpafs, was the cafe of Wat/on and Alien before referred to ; and here alfo, if the burtheo of proof was really laid on the defendant, we may find a fpecial reafonfor it in the faO: ultimately cftabliflied j viz. that the plain - tlif was the fon of an Indian woman ; and confequently that the prefumption of flavery did not fairly arife ; for in the cafes of mulattoet C S5 ) This aft was evidently framed with an anxlout defire to remedy the defeds of the exilling law, and mulattoes and meftees, the complexion, wliich forms the ground of theprefumption, is often -equivocal; and then unlefa an African extraftion is admitted or (hewn, the onus probandi cannot fairly be laid on the party afferttd to be free. To impofe it on Watfon in this cafe, would have been begging the qucftion againfl: hira as to his maternal parentage ; fince perfons of the Indian race are not liable to flavery by law. It would appear however, I think, from Mr. Burge's llatement (p. 92.) that he gave evi- dence, in the firft inftance, of the fadl of his mother being an ' Indian. Neverthelefs the defendant's counfel, (contending I ' prefume, that this faft was not fufEciently proved) objefted, as we have feen, to the form of aftion ; and would have driven him to his homitie r-plegiarulof io order to put the onus probandi inconteilably upon him. The cafe of CampOell v. Makolm, reported by Mr. Burge in p. 90. and again noticed by him in p. 92. was an aftion of dehtf brought by a free coloured woman againft the defendant Malcolm, on a bond given by him to her ; to which he pleaded the general iflue ; and alfo that the plaintiff, at the time of the etf tcution of the bond, was a flavc ; and the court fetafide the latter plea as inconfiftent with the former. On the general iffue the defendant offered to give evidence of the fame fa6t, which he had formerly pleaded fpecially, and the court reiufedto receive it. But the decifion, as Mr. Burge himfelf informs us, (p. 90.) was by no means founded on the pretended rule, that flavery of the plaintiff cannot ordinarily be given in evidence on the general ifTue. On the contrary, the court declined the decifion of that queflion, and rejefted the evidence folely on the ground, that the defendan j.haTing executed the bond in which the plaintiff D4 ^^* ( S6 ) and to furmount by extraordinary expedients the great inherent difficulties of an object in which the Jamaica was defcriied by him as a free luoman, was eftopped or con- eluded by his own aimiffion under his hand and feal, from alleging that fhe was not a free woman at that time. Here I cannot help adverting again to the modeft comparifon in the report with our own antient law of villeinage. By that law, the giving a bond to the villein by the lord was an abfolute enfranchifement. If the fame rule had exifted in Jamaica, the exprefs admifllon of the freedom would not have been wanted ; the dodlrine of eftoppel would have had no place ; and the queftion on the form of pleading could not have arifen. The former plea of flavery inftead of being fet afide for incompati- bility with the general iffue, might have been demurred to. But indeed the merely pleading the general iffue, would itfelf by the law of villeinage have been a perpetual enfranchifement to the plaintiff. (Mr. Hargrave's argument before referred to.) Inftead of this Mrs. Campbell had again to litigate on the fame ground with this defendant. She afterwards brought an ejectment againft him to recover fome flaves belonging to her which he had difpoffeffed her of (ejectment being the remedy to recover flaves in Jamaica) ; and here the defendant Malcolm, not being eftopped by his deed, was allowed to give in evidence on the general iffue, contrary to her counfel's ideas of the law, that (he was herfelf a flave at the time when fhe bought the flaves in queftion. The evidence was objected to j but the court received it. The report of this cafe is refumed, by Mr. Burge, in ' p. 92-93, and we there find that the evidence offered by the defendant was the record of a deed of manumiffion to the plaintiff, obtained fubfequcntly to her purchafe of one ( 57 ) Jamaica Affembly would now perfuade us there k Ro difficulty at all, that of giving to perfons wrong- fully one or more of the flaves for which the action was brought ; jvhich was encountered by evidence on the plaintiff's part, of her having been reputed free for 1 8 years, together with a letter ' from the defendant, and a paper written by his agent, in which he treated her as a free woman. Here again the law of villeinage would at once have made an end of the queftion. Any recognition by the former mafter whether exprefs or implied was decifive. But not fo in Jamaica. " When (adds the reporter) the evidence of the reputation of the plaintiff having b'een free for i8 years was offered by examinant, the counfel for the defendant objected to its recep- tion, on the ground that reputation of freedom for any period Ihort of 20 years was infufficient, and ought not to be re- ceived ; but the court allowed it to be received." ** The counfel for the defendant defired that the plaintiff fhould be nonfuited on the whole effect of the evidence produced. This the court refufed to do ; and after examinant had addreffed the jury in reply, the court told the jury they had permitted every thing to come before them, and left the cafe entirely to them.'* '* The jury returned a verdict in favour of the plaintiff. A bill of exceptions was tendered on the part of the defendant to the direction of the court ; but it has fince been abandoned by the defendant, as examinant has been informed by the folicitors for both parties." 1 quote the report thus fully, becaufe it is on this authority^ alone that the Affembly has ventured to advance a propofition novel and furprifing to a man who knows any thing of colonial flave law, viz. " that the prefumption arijing from the long enjoy' nunt of liberty it dtemedfufficient to ejlabli/b the right,'* (p. 16.) It ( 58 ) folly held in flavery, means of eftablifliing their freedom againll their oppreffors. I think we may trace *" It is evident from the facts ftated that the cafe by no means bears out that affertion. The actual freedom of the plaintiff W3S not difpUted. The defendant himfelf produced the record of his own manumiffion of her. In the former action on bis bond alfo he had admitted it, contending only that her freedom was not of fo old a date as the bond ; and here the defence was, that fhe was not free till after her purchafe of the flaves, for which her ejectment was brought ; confequently, that being unable at that time to acquire property except for the mafter's benefit) the flaves were not her property, but his. (See this fully explained by Mr. Burge himfelf, in p. 92.) The queftion therefore was only ai what time her freedom commenced. The more we are favoured with any in fight into colonial flave law by its apologifts, the more will its odious feverity, when com- pared with any other code, antient or modern, appear. This de> fence would not have been admitted by the flave code of Rome* Theflave's property or peculium was protected in a qualified man- ner even while he continued in bondage ; and by manumiflion be- came abfolutely his own. Under the law of villeinage, the lord might feize it, but if he omitted to do fo while the relation fub- fifted, there was an end of his right. It went even to the reprefen- tatives of the villein at his death. AH other flave codes of which I have any knowledge were ilill more liberal. But here we find the court of Jamaica over ruled Mr, Burge's objection to the former matter's claim in point of law, allowing him to give evidence of the flavery of the plaintiff at the time of the acquifition of the property, and leaving the cafe on that evidence to the jury, (p. 92.) ( 59 ) trace in it the intelligence and humanity of Mr. Wylly, Attorney General of thofe iflands, whofc The learned reporter is as ufual fparing of his information as to the facts of the cafe ; and leaves us therefore at a lofs to guefs how it happened that the date of the manumiffion did not decide this queftion. Perhaps it had no date ; or perhaps it was only by way of confirmation of a freedom previoufly pof- feffed by birth or otherwife. It is clearly to be inferred from the ftatement that the defendant's letter and the paper written by his agent recognizing her freedom, were of a previous date to that of the deed, if it had one. The jury having found in her favor, the inference arifing from the manumifSon produced by the plaintiff, muft have been held by them to be fallacious. From his unjuft attempts, firft, in refjpeft of the bond debt, and next of the flaves (he had purchafed, it feems probable that there was fomething unfair in the ufe he attempted to make of his own manumiffion. But whatever the fuppreffed fafts were, it is plain that the evi- dence of reputation was adduced not " to ejlabll/h the right to freedom," as the Affembly alleges, for that was not in queftion ; but merely to carry back the sera of its commencement beyond the time when the plaintiff acquired the property in difpute. It could not have been the point made on her behalf, that 1 8 years pofleffion of freedom gave a right to it ; for in that cafe the 1 8 years muft have been {hewn to haveelapfed before the pur- chafe of the flaves, and not merely fo long before the trial. For the fame reafon, whatever was meant by the propofition on the other fide, '< that 20 years was neceflary," it could not mean * neceffary to eftablilh the plaintiiPs right to freedom," nor can it be fo explained on any rule of law, Weft Indian or Jlnglifb^ as to the queftion of flave or free. There ( 6o ) ^ whofe attachment to the caufe of the Abolitidn is well known in this country. Whoever There is no colonial aft on the fubjeft, and by the law of rilleinage one year's acquiefcence by the matter was enough to bar his right. I hare befides already noticed a cafe in which a woman, defcribed to have been twenty years in pofTeffion of liberty in Jamaica, was advertifed to be fold, on a prefumptipn of flavery under the poUce laws. All that the Affembly now fhews to the contrary is a mere dictum of counfel. As to the bill of exceptions, every lawyer can fee a good rcafon for its abandonment. The court having merely refufed to direct a nonfuit, and left the whole cafe to the jury, on a queftion where there was evidence on both fides, the bill. of exceptions clearly could not be maintained. Mr. Burge's remark on the other cafes, to countenance this new do6trine of freedom by reputation, is a mere fallacy. " In none of the cafes to which he has referred, in tuhich the plain' tiffs recovered, did they produce the deed of manumijjion to fupport their claim of freedom." No certainly ; for in none of them did the plaintiff claim freedom as a manumitted flave. In all the cafes at leaft in which the fats are difclofed, and in wliich the plaintiffs had to maintain, and recovered their freedoqi, they claimed as free-bom. After all, 1 deny this new pretence, that flaves may gain freedom by reputation in the Weft Indies, only for the fake of truth, and to ihew the uniform fpirit of this report; and not at all for the fake of my general argument. Of what avail would it be to the African unlawfully imported and held in flavery^ that evidence of freedom" by reputation for 20 or 18 years, or a much fhorter period even, would fufSce for his deliverance ? Such evidence, in hi cafe, of cuurfe could never exift. I cannot ( 6i ) Whoever was its author, the novel expedients which it reforts to fumifli a clear illuftration of thofe I cannot take leave of this cafe of Malcolm and Campbell, without obferving how ftrongly it fhews, like the reft, the nc- ceffity of fuch an eftablifhment as it is brought forward to op- pofe. Here we have a poor woman obftru<5ted twice in the re- covery of her juft rights, haraffed by litigious defences, ajid driven to the hazard of a jury's conclufions on parol evidence, even though her freedom was undifputed, becaufe, from the want of a regiftry, her opponent was able to pretend that fhe had been his flave at a former period, when (he was aftually free, and to withhold her property on that groundlefs pretext. The other cafes mentioned in this report, thofe of Johnfon and others verfus Johnfon, and Ricuffet verfus Jackfon, were homine replegianJos, in which it is admitted by both the learned counfel, that the onus probandi lies on the claimant, contrary to the affertion of the affembly. Accordingly we find, in the firft of them, that though the plaintiffs were enfranchifed by a will, which they were prepared to produce, they failed, and were nonfuited, becau/e they could not entitle them/elves to read the will, by proving, in thefrj injlance, that they tusre the property of the tejlator in his life-time. (p. 93 .) Here again the awful queftion of flave or fccc, in which a mother and her. three children were contending for their human deftiny, was left to the doubtful effed of parol evidence, through the want of a regiftry. Even the manumitttors title muft be eftabliflied, we fee, by the helplefs newly enfranchifed parties, who, from want of a public record of it, may be igno< rant of its nature, and much more of the evidence oa which it ftands. The faAs in Ricuffet and Jackfon are wholly unnoticed j 9S to afk them whether they had deferted their public duty. Their evidence fo taken adds nothing to that of the previous returns. One refpetable officer of the navy indeed. Rear Admiral Douglafs, fpontaneoufly adds to the general janfwer, " that he had known of no fuch offences of his own knowledge j'* the further ftateraent, that he had made enquiries on his arrival on the ftation fix months before, and could hear of no Have trade having been carried on ; nor have I any doubt of the truth of his aflertion. But certainly the admiral ^d the officers of his fquadron, were not the per- fons mod likely to be informed of the afiual clan- deftine introdudtion of flaves into the ifland. The noSurnal fmugglers would take care not to attrad the notice of the men of war j and how little gentle- men of the navy learn of the bad practices on fliore might be fhewn from a comparifon of the evidence given before Parliament fix and twenty years ago, by many gallant officers, with the fads now admitted by the Affembly in this very report. They thought all was well &nd laudable in the treatment of ilaves, at ( 90 ) at a time when the planters now themfelves acknow- ledge that treatment to have been indefenfibly bad. The coUedor of one of the cuftom-houfes, that of Falmouth, and two of the planters, have in like manner volunteered the teflimony of their opinions in addition to the anfwers required from them; but among the other witnefles, thirty-four in all, I do not perceive that one, except Mr. Hinchliffe the Judge of the Admiralty, has ftated his information or belief on this interefling fubjed. Mr. Hinchliffe's evidence deferves particular attention. I pafs by, for the prefent, what he fays of the profecutions in his court, becaufe it goes only to repel or explain in part, certain prima facie evidence adverted to on our fide, as to captures at fea ; and does not apply to the immediate queftion, that of adual clandeftine importation into Jamaica. But after dating that he had not known of any illicit im- portation of flaves " from any proceedings inflituted in his court," he fays ** nor has he any fuch know- ledge, properly fpeaking, otherwife; but it may be right to fay he heard about two years paft, that an examination took place before the fitting magif- trates of Kingfton, as to two young negro boys which a brown man was accufed of having attempted to fell, having brought them from St. Domingo ; and upon occafion of fuch examination he was 9 fmce ( 91 ) fince told that fufpicion was excited j it was not the only injiance.'^ He adds, " that he has no knowledge in any way whatever of any illicit impor- tations " but in the injlances from information which he thought it right to mention as above *." The Committee now thought fit to put the fol- lowing queflion : Q. " Be pleafed to ftate from what fource you derive the information of a brown man having attempted to fell two negro boys as Haves, having brought them from St. Domingo j and by whom were you told that fufpicion had been excited that it bad not been the only inflame /" A. " The gentleman who mentioned the above circumftance to him was M. de la Fitte ; who he believes was examined before the magiftrates on the occafion.*' If this was all, the latter part of the queftion, which I have marked with italics, is not at all anfwered. The Committee however did not thmk fit to repeat it. Their advocates therefore I prefume will be driven to fay that they conftrued the anfwer to re- prefent the French gentleman named, as the au- thor of the general, as well as the particular, infor- mation. p. 47. If ( 9* ) If fo, or in any cafe, it would have been natural when M. de la Fitte was afterwards examined in re- ^ct of the particular cafe, to interrogate him as to the rumours, of a general kind, thus connected with it by Mr. Hinchcliffe. But the Committee here again prudently repreffed its curiolity. No queftion is put to M, de la Fitte as to the rumours or fufpicions of other inftances; but after his account of that fingle cafe mentioned by the former witnefs, the fol- lowing interrogatory is put to him. Q. " Do you know of any flaves having been clandeftinely imported into this ifland/or the purpofe of being employed on plantations or otherivife ', or of any attempts having been made to introduce flaves by illicit practices j and if yea, fet them forth *.'* Here we find the old fettled interrogatory on this fubjel qualified with new terms; and yet the reflric- tion to knowledge ftill anxioufly retained. The new terms "/or the purpofe of, &c. were at the fame time plainly calculated to lead off the witnefs's mind from cafes of the fame defcription with that which he had juft ftated J for in that inftance the fmuggled flaves * p. 64. In marking this and other quotations by italics to direct the reader's attention, I think it right to obferve that they are not to be underftood as being in the original, unlefi when I exprefsly notice that circumftance. i were < 93 ) Were not emp!oyed on, nor apparently defigned for, a plantation. The terms " other flaves," or " other in- ftances/* would have been natural, but would have an oppofite tendency. In (hort, the queftion could hardly have been better framed to keep back the in- convenient information which this witnefs had been quoted for by Mr.Hinchliffe ; and M, de la Fitte ac- cordingly anfwered negatively, in the very words of the interrogatory. His making no exception of the inftance already fpecified, feems to Ihew that he did not mean to negative cafes of that defcription. The particular cafe as explained by this gentle- man is well worthy of attention. It appears that M. de la Fitte, who had been fet- tled ly years as a planter in St. George's, Jamaica, formerly owned an eftate in St. Domingo ; and that two young .creole negroes * imported from that ifland, and fold in the town of Kingfton, had for- merly belonged to his eftate. On a vifit that he happened to make to that town, he was informed of the fads by a black woman, who it would appear had known the negroes in St. Domingo. He there- fore went to fee them ; the one a prifoner in the gaol, (for what caufe is not mentioned), and the * Mr. Hinchcliffe calls them ** boys ;" but that appellation ia the Weft Indies is often applied to adult flares. ether ( 94 ) Other at a Mr. Gillbank's wharf; and finding the information true, he applied to the magiftrates of the place, before whom the negroes were brought, and the fa^s examined. It was proved that the negroes had been brought, from St. Domingo, by a black man namedG/7/^; and by him fold to a Jew of the name of Levi in King- ilon. Gille the importer it feems alfo then refided in that town, the capital of Jamaica ; for we are told that on hearing of the invefligation before the ma- giftrates, he got on board a fchooner, and failed from the harbour before he could be apprehended. Here the account ends ; except that M. de la Fitte adds that the magiflrates diredled the negroes to be taken into cuftody in order that they might be fent back according to his requeft to St. Domingo ; " and he has no doubt that the order for carrying them back to St. Domingo was carried into effed*." If It is a pity that we have no confirmation of M. de la Fitte'a opinion on that interefting point, fince it feems he had never taken the trouble to afccrtain it j vfc are alfo left to conjefture the reafon why Mr. Levy the purchafer was not proceeded againft for his {hare in this tranfa6tion. Indeed the efcape of Gille the principal felon, is difmiffed in no very fatisfaAory way. It would appear from the language that he had barely time to throw himfelf on board before the officer arrived at the wharf he embarked from. Were there no means of flopping the ( 95 ) If the omiffion to interrogate M. de la FItte as to the rumours for which his authority had been quoted the veffel ? If fo, the harbour of Kingfton is much worfe guarded than other Weft Indian ports. I feel a little curiofity to learn whether proceedings were inftituted againft the fugitive in his abfence, fo as at leaft to affeft his property, and prevent his returning with impunity. It ihould be obferved alfo that Gille could not have imported thefe negroes without accomplices, or without a veffel. Were no enquiries made then by what veffel the forfeiture had been incurred ; and by whom (he was commanded I The filence of the report on all thefe important points is the more remarkable, becaufe we find even the interrogatory to M. de la Fitte, aflcing for information as to the manner of the offence ; though with the ufual caution of the Committee con- fining him to what he certainly knevj. *' Set forth ivhat you kno'w of your o may fairly excite cenfure and fufpicion, what will be thought of the Affembly*s affurance in venturing to flate that he had explicitly contradided that in- iinuation ! J I *' So far from any thing having appeared before the magiftrates in prefence of M. de la Fitte to ivar rant an infinuation that this was not the only injiance of the kind, he Jiates explicitly, that he never had knoivn of flaves having been clandefiinely imported^ or of any attempt having been made to introduce Jlaves hy illicit pra^ices" I befeech the reader to compare this paffage in p. 13, with Mr. Hinchliffe's evidence, p. 47, and M. de la Fitte's in 64 ; and then afk himfelf what is the true charafter of this report. The paths of falfehood are always flippery and dangerous. The Aflembly in this laft mifre- prefentation has incautioufly difcovered a fact wc had not intelligibly learnt from the teftimony of Mr. Hinchcliffe, as reported ; viz. that the other inftances of importing flaves had been alleged to have appeared before the magifirates in their exami- nation of the Haytian cafe. I really fuppofed Mr. Hinchcliffe to mean no more than that rumours of other offences of a like kind had come privately to his ears, or thofe of his informant i and fo Idoubt not will ( 97 ) Will every other reader of his examination ; but the reporters, who had taken it, knew better ; and have betrayed themfelves by the difcovery, that the infor- mation refpe6ling which they durft not examine their own witneffes, was the incidental fruit of a judicial enquiry, before magiftrates whom they durfl not call. From the way in which they fpeak of the *' infinuat'ion^* a reader of the report, who did not refer to the evidence, would be led to fuppofe that it had been an infinuation on our part, and not the difcovery on oath of a refpeftable witnefs called by the reporters themfelves. In this, as in other in- ftances, the calculation reafonably was, that few readers of the report, would examine with any atten- tion the lengthy papers annexed. This cafe of the Haytian youths however, not- withftanding all the good management of the com- mittee, throws ftrong light on the general fads in difpute. We are defired to believe that flave fmuggling is held in abhorrence at Jamaica, that it has had no cxiftence fmce the firfl abolition adl, that no man would be daring enough to pradife it, and, that fuppofmg any fuch crime committed, the vidims of it would infallibly be delivered by the interpofition of the law. But how does all this confift with the feds of the Haytian cafe, as unluckily noticed G by, ( 98 ) by Mr. HinchclifFc, and explained by M* dc ta Fitte ? Neither Gilk nor Levy, it is plain, had any ccm- fcioufnefs of this purity of the ifland of Jamaica, or this certainty of its public juftice ; for the one felo- nioufly imports, and brings without fear into the capital town of the ifland, and the other buys and openly holds in llavery there, two negroes from Hayti. How long thefe young men had been kept in Kingfton before M. de U Fitte's cafual journey to that town from St. George's, we are not told ; but it is plain that neither Gille nor Levy could have apprehended any danger from the open appearance of thefe fubjefts of felonious trade ; fince they had f\ifFered them to be publicly feen and converfed with in the town ; where M. de la Firte, had no difEculty in finding them ; the one on a public wharf, and the other in the Gaol. For whatever caufe the latter was confined, we learn that it was not of fuch a criminal nature a to preclude his enlargement upon M. de la Fitte's interference. We may reafonably furmife, there- fore, that it was the common cafe of imprifonment by requeft of the mafter, for defertion or fome other offence againft himfclf j or fome cafe at Icaft ia ( 99 ) in which Mr. Levy the oftenfible mafter, might eafily have procured a difcharge. If fo, the negro being fufFered to remain in the common gaol of Kingfton, ftfikingfy proves how little was apprehended from that boafted public juftice into contact with which this injured Haytian was brought. "We find that not even Gille the adual importer, felt himfelf in any danger becaufe his black vidim was in the hands of the police ; though, when a white man ftood forward to proted him, and an invelligation was inftituted before the magiftrates, he thought it neceffary to abfcond. The obvious inference from his former condud is the ftronger, becaufe Gille ^ whether a black man, as he is called by M. de la Fitte, or a brown man, as Mr. Hinch- cliffe defcribes him, was one of thofe perfons whom colonial juftice is in other cafes not flow to punifli for public crimes ; and who are therefore far more cautious in general than members of the privileged clafs, not to tranfgrefs the laws. Let it be confidered too that the injured parties tvere not negroes accuftomed to flavery, or found, at the moment of the wrong, in a fervile condition ; but had, until their importation, always been in pof- feflion of liberty, and among men tenacious of its rights ; confequently there could be no hope of their tacit acquiefcence in the exile and bondage law- Ga lefsly ( IP> ) Icfsly impofed upon them. Neither were they nl- tives of Africa, whofe ignorance of any language fpoken in the place, and of any law to which the}' could appeal to, might prevent their complaints j but perfons who fpoke the French tongue, and who muft have known the redrefs to which they were entitled, both as Haytians and free men. They in all probability were apprifed too of our abolition laws, which had been loudly celebrated in their native ifland. The confidence of Gille and Levy then could- only have been derived from a reafonable aflurance that the complaints of negroes imported and fold in Jamaica contrary to law, would not be heard ; or if 'heard could not be dangerous. In other words, they mufl have relied on that truth which we have afferted, and which the Jamaica Aflembly vainly attempts to deny. They muft have known that fuch wrongs are remedilefs under the laws and ufages of the Weft Indies, by any means which a poor opprefled negro can employ for his own de- liverance. Mr. Levy, if I miftake not, is a merchant of credit, long fettled in Kingfton ; and could, no doubt, well eftimate the fecurity of a title for which he paid his money, as well as his own fafety in the tranfa^ion. It ( loi ) ' It is plain at leafl: that both he and Gllle had very different views from thofe which the Affembly would imprefs upon us, and thought at leaft as badly of colonial laws and manners in this refpel as the African Inftitution. We may invoke the teftimony of their conduft to prove that our opinions were theirs ; for they aded on them at their peril. We may invoke alfo the ftill more decifive tefti- mony of the event. Where were the homine re- plegiandcs, the adions of trefpafs, the gratuitous protedors, the fpontaneous fureties, for thofe op- prefTed Haytians ? Where were " the fufficient laws to afford complete redrefs *,** the redrefs ** always given, and never obJlruSted t." The *' opprejjion^ which in this ijland could not he pradifed J,** was pradifed we fee in the moft open and audacious man- ner; not in the center of a plantation, where no com* petent witnefs but the mafter or his agents can without his confent be fpedators ; but in the infular metropolis, on the public wharfs and gaols, under the eyes of the magiftrates, and within the very grafp of the police ; and this not on a poor ignorant African, but upon Creole negroes ; youths unufed to flavery, able to complain, and whofe very fpeech Jamaica Report, p. 18. t Ibid. X Ibid. G3 mufl ( 102 ) muft have attefted to the peace officers, to the ma. giflrates, and to all who converfed with them, the illegality of their bondage. Surely with a mind of any candour, and any ordinary powers of reafoning, I need alk no more than this fingle cafe, to prove all that we have afferted, and all that the Affembly has denied, as to the facility of fuch oppreflions. And can we poflibly fuppofe it to have been a foli- tary inftance ; or even among the firft that had oc- curred ? The confidence of the offenders manifeflly Ihews the reverfe. If the law had not alarmed them, the more impreffive influence of example and public feeling, muft, in that cafe, at leafl have infpired fome fear, and didated fome precaution. For my own part I can no otherwife account for their conduct than by fuppofing the cafe to have been in Kingfton, what we are afllired from good private information it ivas in another part of the Wefl Indies ; viz. that the bringing in and felling a few flaves when found convenient, was a matter fo common as not to be thought to demand concealment or refer ve. The fufpicions adverted to by Mr. Hinchcliffe, and the AlTembly's difingenuous fhifts to prevent their elucidation, are not neceffary to fatisfy me that even free Haytians had before been frequent objefts of fuch crimes. Had this been the only cafe in which thofe alarmingly interefting neighbours had been 4 itolen '( '03 ) ftolen and brought to Jamaica, the audacity of ih^ tranfaftion, and its fuccefs alfo, would be quite in- credible. The Haytians youths muft have attracted notice and enquiry ; even if they had not chofen to complain. Indeed to recruit the flavery of Jamaica with the black citizens of Prcfident Petion, or fubjecls of King Henry Chriftophe, is in many refpeds fo dan- gerous, that it is not eafy to account for the impunity of fuch offences as Gille's and Levy's, except from a general indifpofition to enforce the odious abo- lition ats in any cafe, and the fear of fuch a precedent. Another obfervation fairly arifing from this cafe of theHaytians,Js,that it decilively confirms the remarks I have made on the negative evidence on which the Affembly would perfuade us to rely. Of what avail is it that many witneffes could be found in Jamaica who had not known any cafes of Have trading, and two, who did not believe, and two more who had not heard that any fuch cafes had occurred, when it is (hewn that cafes fo notorious as that of the fmug- gled Haytians, had neverthelefs exifted; and fo recently as the preceding year ? How ftriflly the witneffes ufed the words know and knowledge y is evident \ fince even the colledor of Kingdon could G 4 date ( 104 ) ftate that he did not know of any flaves having been clandeftinely or illicitly introduced, without except- ing this Haytian cafe. How incredulous the two planters who dated their belief on the fubjed muft have been, and how fcanty the information of navy officers as to what pafled on fhore, and even of the Cuftoin Houfc officers in general, we may learn from the fame cafe. Infhort, we have here a ftandard by which we may ap^ preciate the true value of all fuch negative teftimony j for neither the Admiral, though he made enquiries of his officers, nor the colledor of one of the Jamaica ports, had ever heard, it feems, of this cafe of M. de la Fitte's negroes ; though it had been the fub- jed of public examinations before the magiftrates of Kingfton, in confequence of which the two Hay- tians had been delivered, a warrant for felony had been iffued, and the offender had in a remarkably manner openly fled from juftice. I am far from doubting that the refpedable wit- neffes were quite corred in their flatements ; but furely then, fuch want of information proves nothing as to the non-exiftence of the practice. If thefe offences may not only be perpetrated, but pub- licly detected, tried, and eflablifhed by judicial examinations before a bench of magiftrates, and in the ( J05 ) the chief town of the ifland, without being heard of by thofe gentlemen ; how much more might clan- deftine nocturnal importations be carried on without coming to their ears * The * The two planters, to whom I have alluded as having fpokcn to theh- belief, are certainly very (launch friends to the com- mon caufe, as will fully appear from their evidence ; and to them the Aflembly was bold enough to put a queftion as to belief, but ftill abftaining cautioufly from information, " Do you know, or believe, that any attempts have been made to fmuggle flaveu into this ifland ?" (p. 80 & 98.) The firft witnefs, Mr, Murray, anfwers negatively, in the terms of the queftion, without any exception of the cafe of the Haytians, though rfiat had been the fubject of examinations before the committee a few days before. He, therefore, either did not believe what the magiftrates had believed and acted on, and what a former witnefs had proved ; or elfe, as the queftion was worded, he did not fuppofe it to comprife actual importa' (ions, but only abortive attempts. The other witnefs, Mr. Steward, does not anfwer indeed ou his belief as to tke Ifland at large, though the queftion went to that extent, but being one of the magiftrates who received parochial returns of flaves for the poll-tax in Trelawny parifh, and no fmuggling having been difcovered in the returns, he fays, " from no fuch circumftances being difcovered, he is convinced that no flave has been brought into the parijh by illicit means." (p. 99.) As to St. James's parifh, of which he is a magiftrate, Mr- MuiTay had drawn the fame inference from the fame pre- juifes. They were both led to it by a very fpecial interro-. gatory, and it was apparently for the fake of this inference that the queftion ag to htlief was hazarded in thefe two initancet only. Nothing ( io6 ; The planters and attornies for abfent proprietors, whofe evidence remains to be noticed, are eleven in number ; and to none of thefe did the committee of Nothing can be more palpably unfair, or can mark more clearly the difingenuous fpirit of the Report, than the attempt to treat parochial returns as a teft of non-importation. What are they but mere numerical ftatements of the amount of flaves for which the mafter is liable to the parochial poll-tax. That they are in general rery incorrect, and below the truth as to num- bers, for the purpofe of evading the tax, is ftated in the popu- lation accounts of moft of our Iflands. (Papers printed by the Houfe of Commons, February 25th, 1805, Jamaica, 17. G.) and among others thofe of Jamaica itfelf, and even in this very report ; as I (hall have occafion to (hew hereafter. ** But there are veftry committees in the parifhes" we are told, *' to check and correct the returns." What then ? Their information, as well as their object, is purely numerical. What means have they to know whether of 200 flaves g^ven in for plantation A. ten, or any other proportion, were fmuggledfince the laft yearly return ? Is the whole number increafed ? It may be by births or by purchafes within the ifland. No veftry has any right to enquire by what means it arofe. (See Mr. Simon Taylor's account, cited in a future note, on this fubject.) Befides, generally fpeaking, the refource of illegal importa- tion will be ufed, not to increafe the actual numbers, but to replace, progreffively, loffes by mortahty. No addition of numbers therefore will generally be found. Unlefs a planter then (hould choofe wilfully to difclofe his own crimes, it is abfolutely impoffible that the recruiting his gang by contra- band means ftiould ever appear to the veftry by his parochial returns. Affembly ( I07 ) Affembly addrefs a iingle queftion as to that point of the controverfy on which they aiFect to lay the greateft ftrefs, the actual importation of flaves. The only interrogatory put to gentlemen of thofc defcriptions that is at all relative to the fubject, is worded in fuch a manner as ftudioufly to avoid any difcovery of facts of flave trading, even if they had lain in the direct knowledge of the witneffes* ; and k may be faid of the evidence of moft of thofe gentle^ men that it might have been truly given in the fame terms if the witnefs hirafelf had been guilty of fuch ofiences. . To fix of thofe eleven planters, no interrogatory whatever is addreffed, that has the leafl bearing oa the point in queftion. It is in thefe words : " Have the eftates under youa? direAion been conduced under an expeftation of a fupply of labourers from Africa^ or any other place or places whatfoever, or have any of your conftituents ever given you the leaft room to believe that they looked for flaves from illicit importations or from any fource except transfers within the ijland, or natural in- creafe on the plantations, from breeding and rearing children ?* I -will undertake to anfwer this queftion in the negative, for thefe abfent proprietors. I neither believe that any planter refident here will inftru6k his attorney to fmuggle for him, Bor that many planters in our colonies will acquire iinuggled flaves J *' tKcept hy transfers within tht i^and." Three ( io8 ) c Three medical gentlemen largely employed in vifiting the plantations, are alfo examined ; and towards them there is the fame remarkable referve. So alfo as to the two gentlemen of the bar, who from the extenfive acquaintance with living manners, and with fubjects of property, incident to their profeffion, and from their periodical circuits in that large ifland, were peculiarly likely to be able to have heard of the pradices in difpute. The general refult of this review is, that of thirty- four witneffes examined, fifteen only fpeak, or are A. defired to fpeak, as to the fad of fmuggling, at all ; that thefe, with three exceptions, were the perfons ^'^ leaft likely to have in their knowledge, fads to their own adual knowledge of which alone they were examined ; and that the Aflembly, does not venture to alk one of its numerous witneffes what he has heard and believes on the fubjed. I expect fome of our Ingenious opponents to reply that hearfay and belief are not evidence. Certainly not In law, for the purpofe of conviding the individual fmugglers ; but for the purpofe of ^jf^uitting the people of Jamaica at large, of general imputations which their Affembly engages to dif- prove, fuch evidence, however unfatisfadory, is evidently 5 "'Jr. ( 1^9 ) evidently the beft that the cafe, in the abfence of a regiftry, can afford. If a man were to undertake to prove to me that there has been no fhoplifting during the laft feven years in London; he would make little, .^ai?' progrefs to my convidion, by calling twenty or more fhopkeepers feleded by himfelf, each of whom had never known the offence, of his own know- ledge ; but it would be much more fatisfadory if they told me, that living in different parts of the town, they had never heard of a cafe of fhoplifting among their friends and neighbours, during the period in queftion j and did not believe that any fuch cafe had arifen. I muft acknowledge indeed that if they themfelves were liable to the fufpicion of re- ceiving goods ftolen in the fhoplifting trade, and if iheir objed was to prevent a new regulation of police for the detedion of that very crime ; their evidence would not weigh much with me, at befl; but in whatever degree they might be intitled to credit, their particular knowledge, would fall far fhort of their general information and belief. Before I take leave of the evidence in this report 4is to the queflion of fmuggling, I muft notice again that of the learned Judge of the Vice Admiralty Court, Mr. Hinchliffc, He gives fome account of five of the cafes ( no ) cafes alluded to in Our report on the regiftry ; and ftates himfelf to be fatisfied that there were nO grounds for believing that any of the veflels were engaged in the illicit importation of flaves into Jamaica. Here the Affembly is full of exultation ; and I am ready to admit that it was a fmgular felicity to find truth for once on its fide ; and to be able fairly to controvert fome fmall part, of one of our numerous reafons, for believing that flave trade has alually cxifted in fome of the Britifh colonies. But when this honourable body is bold enough to take the offenfive ; to arraign on this ground the truth and integrity of our report, to carry its exultation into infult, and forgetting its dignity, to fearch out as the objeft of its imputations and invectives, a humble individual like myfelf ** ; I muft take leave to arreft its triumph by a few plain remarks. To leffen the bulk of this publication, however, and to avoid too long a fufpenfion of our more ge- neral arguments, I Ihall put this, like other fubjects capable of being detached, into a note t. Another * See p. 13 & 41. f What is the ftatement in onr feport that the Afleilibly fo rudely arraigns i " That many cargoes of negroes from Africa feized ( " ) Another antagohift, whofe work has been pub- lifhed fince my lafl: fheet went to prefs, and has jua feized at fea have been condemned in the prize courts, feveral of which were reafonably prefumed to be Britifh property," &c. Our report then adds, *' It is however Hill more decifive that there have been numerous condemnations in the Weil Indies, of fmall veflels vnth each a few negroes on board, feized in the neighbourhood of our iflands and profecuted under the abohtion aSs. A hft of thirty Weft Indian condemnations under theft afis, as returned to the Houfe of Commons, is printed in the eighth report of the African Inftitution ; and it will be found on referring to it, that in fixteen of thofe cafes, in which the fentences were acquiefced in, or confirmed on appeal, the num- bers of flaves were fo fmall that they do not average above four to each veffel. They muft, therefore, have been chiefly engaged in the fmuggling trade from the foreign iflands that has been already defcribed ; as twenty times the number of flave* would hardly have fuflBiced to yield profit enough for an African voyage.** Here we have firft, a ftatement of fads ; and next an infer- ence from them. The Aflembly affefts to be very angry at the inference ; but does it deny the fafts ? By no means. That fuch a lift was returned to the Houfe of Commons, and that it is printed in the eighth report of the African Inftitution, were capable of proof on this fide of the Atlantic, and therefore not contra* dided. But five of the thirty Weft Indian condemnations, comprif- ing three of the fixteen felefted cafes upon which we reafoned, took place in Jamaica ; and the Aflembly being aflifted by the Judge's teftimony, is enabled to fupply circumftances not to be fouoA ( "!> ) juftinet my eye f, oppofes to our inferrence from the Wefl Indian condemnations, the fmallnefs of number of flaves they colledively carried. We found in the parliamentary returns, from which the Judge be- lieves that the veffels were not engaged in fmuggling into that ifland. Hereupon thefe temperate legiflators afl5rm that *' no per/on of common integrity and impartiality can come to any other eonclufton ;" and having faid this, they exclaim " what then mujt again on thefc fubjeds. To ( "5 ) To fay that the interior legiflatures have provided no mean of accurately afcertaining during the lafl: eight years, the periodical increafe or dccreafc of flaves, is to impute to them a fhameful and mofl fufpicious negled ; for there never was a cafe that made fuch a provifion more neceffary ; there never was a deeper intereft in afcertaining the pro- grefs of native population, than our fugar colonies mtift have felt in refpeft of their negroes ever fmce the abolition of the flave trade. I mean if they really contemplated and intended a general obfervance of that law ? What then ought we to think of a colonial aiTem- bly, that has wholly neglected this important con- cern ? Surely that is either unfit for the momentous functions with which it is intruded, or has fecret reafons which countervail the obvious motives for eftablifhing fuch a cenfus. But if we afterwards find the fame body furioufly oppofing a meafure, which is undeniably the befl: fitted to afcertain the lawful increafe and diminution of the fervile clafs, and is adverfe only to its illicit augmentation, the true niotives of the pad fupine- nefs cannot bfc hard to guefs. If any man has read tlie Jamaica Report, without anticipating fome of thefe remarks, let him look again ( ij6 ) again at the thirtieth page, and alk himfelf if the defertion of obvious and important duty was ever more coolly avowed. Thefe legiflators mock us with ftatements and figures profefling to be annual numerciai accounts of the exifting flock, and tell us at the fame time, that they are not to be trufted. They fay that none of the annual returns are accurate; that errors pervade them all ; that they are of no ufe except for com* paring in a general way, " diftant periods,*' and that as to two years out of three, the moft experimental perhaps, of any that have elapfed fmce the abolition," " they are altogether incorre6i, and muji be put out of quejiion *." And what is the defence for all this ? That laws made for the purpofe of obtaining an accurate cenfus, have by unforefeen impediments failed ? By no means. They fairly admit that no fuch cenfus was ever defired. For the fake of an internal revenue indeed, they have generally had annual returns of flaves, in refpet of which the owners are taxed ; but thefe returns they acknowledge were never accurate ; and having during two years fmce the abolition had no poll tax on flaves, they cannot as to thofe years, give us even the ordinary loofc accounts of their black population. Report^ p, 30. How ( 127 ) How far the latter part of the ftatement is true, we fhall prefently fee ; but fuch is the AfTembly's avowal. It virtually fays to the Britifh Parliament, '^ As ** to the efFeds of your abolition laws, which we " told you clamoroufly for twenty years, would depo- ** pulate our ifland, we have not thought them worth *^ our obfervation or notice. We have not framed ** a fingle a6t to afcertain either the births and " deaths of flaves, or even their periodical numbers. '* We defire not to know whether our population is " increafmg or declining ; much lefs whether the *' means by which it is recruited, are legal or illegal, " native or adventitious ; nor fhall you have any ** fuch information, unlefs you can find it in thcfe *' ufelefs returns." In this fuppreflion of facts, deeply interefting not only to the friends of the abolition, and to every planter who means to obey that law, but to the Britifh flatefman and to the empire at large, Jamaica is by no means lingular. In every ifland we poffefs, the fame very fufpicious conduct, the more fufpicious from its uniformity, is found. It fhould be taken in connexion with the faft, that Parliament has re- peatedly cxprelTed its anxious defire to obtain from the alTemblies or colonial governments, accurate accounts of the increafe and decreafe of their black population. ( 138 ), population. In the Weft India papers printed by orders of the Houfe of Commons, of June 8th, 1804, and February 25th, 1805, will be found enquiries ! on thofe fubjeds tranfmitted at difterent times by ' the colonial Secretaries of State to the Governors, in purfuance of Parliamentary addreffcs ; with the correfpondence that enfued. Thefe enquiries, and fuggeftions from the fame high authorities, for improving the condition of the flavesj were by all the colonies neglected ; and by Jamaica treated with the moft indecent and unex- ampled contempt. They were laid by Lord Balcarres before the Affembly ; and its anfwer, for the information -of the Britifli Government and Parliament, was frequently folicited and patiently waited for by his Lordlhip. At length when he could no longer delay fending fome official communication to Government, and urged the Affembly to break its long contemptuous filence, that body thought fit exprefsly to refufe to give any anfwer at all *. The Qovernor thereupon called on the Council for the necelTary information ; and tranfmitted a report from a committee of that board, in which they fay, *' your committee is not pofTefTed of documents, nor are they attainable by them whereby to afcer- * Papers of 1804, Jamaica, G. 52. tain ( 129 ) jf>:.tain what has been on a comparifon of births and deaths of flaves, the annual difference between them . To fubfequent enquiries of the fame kind, ad- dreffed by Earl Camden to Lieutenant Governor Nugent in October 1804, no anfwer appears to have been returned f. I prefume therefore he met the fame infolent repulfe. The Legiflature^of Jamaica then did not defert its duty, in this inftance, from forgetfulnefs. The wifliof the Executive Government and Parliament of Great Britain to obtain the interefting information in queftion, though repeatedly intimated, was wilfully and contumacioufly repelled. The cafe is flronger ftill. The confolidated flave ad of 1788, and that of 1792, contained, among many other fpecious provifions never meant to be executed, claufes requiring owners, overfeers, and managers of flaves to return annual accounts on oath, of all the births and deaths of flaves within the year, under the penalty of fifty pounds for every default J. Mofl: of the other affemblies who amufed Papers of 1804, Jamaica, G. 53. f Papers of 1805, A. No. i. &c, % Act of 1788, Sect. . Act of 1792, Sect. 33, 34, I US ( 130 ) us with oflenfible reformation at that period, adopted fimilar provifions ; admitting them to be neceflary on views of policy and humanity, as checks on private cruelty, and life- wafting abufes. But like other parts of the mock meliorating codes, thefe wholefome regulations proved every where a dead letter. No returns, or very few, were madej and no profecutions were inftituted for withholding them*. At length the Jamaica Affembly prudently con- trived to get rid of the oftenfible regulation itfelf. In a new confolidation at of 1 809, the claufes re- quiring thefe returns are left out j and Goverridr j Morrifon writes in 18 13, " No returns 'have bcfett I iila'detothe Council or Affembly fmce 1810, or the year preceding, of the births or deaths of flaves ; nor ; are any fuch required by any law now in force !'* The * Papers of July 1 8 15, p. 116, 122, &c. as to Jamaica. See alfo Papers of 1 804 and 1 805, as to other iflands. One reafon no doubt of the contemptuous lilence of the Jamaica gentlemen at former periods was, that the returns afked for could not be given, nor the inability to give them confefled, without fhewing that their boafted confolidation act was, a mere hoax on the Britifh people. Thefe gentlemen know well how to be huffifh and infolent in their Reports for political purpofes, as they have fhewn, in various iftftances, and too often ^rith fuccefs. f Papers of 1815, p. 104. What the few returns on this ftibject were prior to 1809, ^"^ appear from what follows in the The Affembly appears to have retrograded ftlU further in this line of obvious duty. A premium of ^3. had been given by one of their meliorating ads to the overfeer of a plantation when the births withio the year exceeded the deaths ; which was to be af- certained by a return to the veftry. A wife and humane law certainly ; and which, from the induce- ment held forth, was not left wholly dormant like the reft. It appears that the premium was fometimes claimed ; but the ad expired in 1807, and has not been revived . This, when we regard the period, is a very re- markable fad. The flave trade was abolifiied in 1807 ; and in the fame year the Jamaica Affembly difcontinued the only meafure that produced even partial evidence of natural iucreafe or lofs. Two ; years after, as we have feen, the only law under which fuch evidence could poffibly be furniihed was repealed : when therefore the new fyftem, if meant to be practically conformed to, made native popu- lation an intereft far deeper than ever, and even vital to the colony, the Affembly difplayed increafed. the fame paper. They were not made in obedience to tte 33d fe^on of the aft of 1792, which required general retunjs of births and deaths, but were returns only for premiums where there had been a natural increafe. When thofe premiums ceafcd, fo did all returns whatever as to births or deaths of ilaves. * Same Papersi 116, .&c> 1 2r indiference ( '3* ) indifference about it ; and inftead of adopting new means for afcertaining its progrefs or decline, put an end to fuch provifions for that purpofe as already exifted. If it was wiflied to favor illicit importations, this condufb was wife ; for all evidence that tends to afcertain the native, muft obvioufly tend alfo to afcei'tain the adventitious, increafe. After fuch very fufpicious, and very contumacious conduS: on the part of the Jamaica Legiflature, what can be thought of its attempting to impofe upon us mere numerical returns under the poll tax adls, avowing at the fame time their great inaccuracy, as evidence of a general conformity to the laws for abollfhing the ilave trade 1 1 In the report itfelf, indeed, this infult on our underftandings is not conveyed in exprefs terms j but when the reporters reafon on thofe returns as Ihewing the lofs by mortality to have progreffively declined*, they plainly affumc not only the corred- nefs of the very returns which, they told us in the pre- ceding page, were not to be trufted, but alfo that they comprifed no flaves imported j in other words, that very difference of numbers foundin themarofe wholly p.31, 3 form ( 33 ) from the balance between births and deaths. They will wholly difprove the neceffity of a Regifter ASt, if we will let them firft: fettle, and then beg, the queftion. They only defire that we (hould put the whole controverfy on the iffue of fmuggling, or no fmuggling, and then admit that every flave added to the former flock lince the abolition was born in the Ifland. Jamaici is not fmgular in fuch claims, and fuch reafoning. The learned agent of Barbadoes tells us, that ** there are annual returns of flaves made in that ifland, upon oath and under adequate penalties, which would infallibly difcover any irregular increafe rf numbers by clandejiine import, if otherwife con* cealable *"/* Yet the returns in Barbadoes, like thofe in Jamaica and every other colony, are merely returns of the exifting numbers ; and as fuch alfo are admitted to be very inaccurate t. There, as in the other iflands, they are matter of mere fifcal regulation, which the owners of the flaves find eafy EXAMINATIOK^ p, I7. f Papers of 1815, p. 30. See alfo p. 3. where the Redor of St. Michaels, fays, " This calculation muft partake of the defed of Lord Seaforth's cenfvis, which was thought at th time much too low, &c." " Nothing ftiort of an A<^ of the Legiflature" he adds " could enfure a tolerably correft account of the population of the Ifland." That excellent Governor, Lord Seaforth, we find laboured la vaia to obtain from the colony this important information. 1 3 means. ( 34 I meians, and (Irong inducements, to elude. Suppofing them however to be quite correct, ftill as they con- tain no accounts of births or deaths, or the other taufes of any increafe or decline of numbers *, the learned agent's propofition is one in which it would be a difparagement of his underftanding to fuppofe him in eameft. It is curious enough to obferve the verfatility of Weft: Indian tenets, on this fubjecl, and the bare- faced contradidions which are offered at different times to our dull European intellefts. * Here it is neceffary perhaps to caution the reader againft being led into an error by the inaccurate language of the Governor. ^* There are no returns made by law" he fays, " of the Mtiths ahd deaths in the feveral pariflieS ; but fuch returns are fumiftied annually in December by the Reftors to the Go- vernor, under an order iffued by me in 1810." (Papers f 1815. p, 2.) The particular queftion which the Governor is here replying to, related to flaves, and to flaves only, (fee it, Q. 6 in p. 152.) his anfwer therefore may be fuppofed to affert that the births and deaths of /laves are returned to him by the Reftors. But this could not be meant. Several of tbofe returns are fet forth in his enclofures, page a to 13; and they will be found, with one exception, to comprife only the wbites aiid free coloured people ; and, for thefe plain reafons, , becaufe they are returns not of births and deaths, but of l>ap' iifms anA lur'tah ; and becaufe idaves are very rarely ejth^ biiried io any chriHian forro^ orbaptifed. When ( '35 ) When Parliament enquired for an account of the births and deaths of flaves, the colonies in general told us that none fuch could be furnifhed. becaufe thefe numerical poll-tax returns afforded no means of ^iftinguifhing the flaves born in the ifland, from thofe Ti^hich had been imported. In the Papers of 1804- for inftance, we find Lord Balcarres, then governor of Jamaica, referring to a letter of Mr. Simon Taylor, cuftos of two parochial diftrids, for the reafons of his Lordihip*s inability to fend the defired ^counts of the native increafe and lols by mortality in three preceding years *. And what are thofe T^afons ? ** I beg you to inform his Lordftiip," (writes that eminent planter Mr. Simon Taylor,) " that the total number of negroes given in to the veftry, was 25,75a; ^ut which of them were negroes born in the ijlandy or Africans imported^ I cannot fay; as'I know of no divine' tion ever made^ ^c." '* I never knew or heard of any Jidcb, accounts^* (accounts of births and deaths of flaves) " having been given in at any veflries ; or required by i^tky lam. to be given in t.'* " It is true" he adds " that almofl every p^rfon keeps an account for himfelf or herfelf of what flaves they pofTefs, as well as of the ifj^jf-gaiOc 9^ .tl|[iep^ by pufphafes, inheritances, or births. fs Papers of 1804, G. 16. ^ A curious proof this, of the utter oblivion into which the proyjfiops of the meliorating ad befose referred to had fallen. I4 and ( i3 ) and alfo of the decreafe by deaths, fales, or otherwifc; but thefe lifts they conjider as their private property, and are not obliged by any law to divulge,'* &c. Yet our opponents would now perfuade us that the fame parochial returns furnifh clear evidence of non-importation. Again, while the Barbadoes agent tells us, " that fuch returns would infallibly difcover any irregular increafe of numbers by clandeftine trade," we are affured by the Thoughts, that no fuch trade can be inferred from any increafe on the returns, however fudden and exceffive. The latter author is very angry with our Report for regarding an augmenta- tion of above 4,400 flaves on a flock of 21,000 returned two years before in Trinidad, as any argu- ment that fmuggling had prevailed t. We are told therefore by one antagonifl, that fuch returns prove every thing j and by another that they prove nothing. According to fome, they are infallible, not only as to numbers, which they do ; but as to origin, which they do not, profefs to flate. According to others, th6y are of no authority what- ever ; even in their proper numerical province. They not only do not fhew the caufes of increafe, ' I ^ ll^ W, m^ i ii i ^ M^i i mm ^M W^ * Same Papers, G. 18. f Thoughts, 109, &c. but ( '37 ) but mifreprefent the meafure of it, to the extent even of one thoufand in five /* I fhould be curious to hear the anfwer of the learned agent/_^if he were afked to explain how an in- creafe of numbers alone would be an ** infallible de- monft ration, that the increment arofe from a eland ef- tine trade.** If there be any reafon in fuch pretences, let all the wine merchants, tobacconifts, and other dealers in excifeable articles, come to Parliament for relief againft that very ufelefs as well as onerous fyftem the excife. Why fliould they be obliged to pafs and receive their goods by permits, and be fub- jeQed to fo many other troublefome regulations, when the mere periodical taking of their flock, would I am almoft weary of expofing the fallacies with which thefe gentlemen would delude their incautious readers. The Thoughts would fain perfuade thofe who cannot think, that we have been guilty of a great inconfiftency in afcribing to the Trinidad Regiftry beneficial collateral eFe6ts in the difcoveries it has produced of fecret trufts, and latent titles to flaves, which had been concealed in order to defrand creditors ; and at the fame time regarding the enormous fudden increafe of numbers fince the abohtion, which it has brought to light, as evidence of contraband trade (p. iii.) Does he fuppofe us fuch blockheads then, as not to perceive, that the returns having been formerly made by the often fible, and now by the real, owners, is a difference that could not at all afFedl the general amount of flaves returned as within the ifland ? He plainly relies on the heedlefsnefs, of his readers in his rcafonings, ai much a? oi) their credulity, iu his ftateraenti. infallibly ( 138 ) infallibly prove whether they had fmuggled or not. Is there an augmentation ? of courfe it was by lawful means. Is there a decreafe ? no doubt it has arifen in the way of honeft trade j and will be fupplied only in the fame way. On our fide, we certainly do not regard th^ Jamaica returns as accurate, or as nearly approach- ing to accuracy, in the numbers they give j but adopting an obfervation of the Report itfelf, " that the fame defcription of errors has always pervaded them," we may reafonably aflume that their approx- imation to, or diftanc* from, the truth, has been pretty uniform, or not greatly unequal in different years. On this affumption, mere numerical returns may ferve to fhew an extreme probability of ilave-trading; though they can never fliew the reverfe, A fum of population nearly flationary, or confiderably declin- ing, cannot prove a non-importation j becaufe the lofs by mortality is not given j and the diminution by that mean, may have equalled, or largely exceeded, the amount of importations and births taken together. But if upon a feries of annual returns, which are either quite accurate, or equally incorreft, very large increafe is found in a fmgle year or more, beyond what the balance between deaths and births can poflibly be fuppofed to have produced, a fupply from without may clearly be inferred. 4 Upon C 139 ) upon thefe undeniable principles, let us examine the account or table of progreflive population from 1800 to 1815, annexed to the Jamaica Report. Suppofing the cafe to have been the reverfe of what the Affembly fo ftoutly maintains, and that jQave fmuggling to a confidcrable extent had adually prevailed in that ifland from the time of the abolii tion ; what are the phenomena fubfequent to that period, that fuch a table as this might be expeded to exhibit ? Reafoning a priori on that aflumption^ \ I fhould infer that they would be exactly fuch as wc j ^ here adually find them. It is obvious, that before illicit trade can enlarge the annual returns, it muft fupply the numbers loft fince the laft year, by the excefs of deaths beyond births within the ifland. This excefs in Jamaica has always been very great ; and though for the reafons already given, we have unfortunately no meafure for it fince the abolition, thefe tables Ihew, to what it amounted in an equal period immediately antecedent. If we take the returns of 1801, which are 307,094, and add to them the numbers of flavcs imported and retained in the ifland to 1808, viz. 5S5505, they make together, 365,599 j but the adlual population in 1808, is by the fame returns y only 323,827 ; the difference therefore, being ([/ 41,772, muft have been the excefs of deaths over births ( 140 ) births In the feven years next preceding the abo- lition. Suppofing then, that there was an equal balance on the fide of mortality in the period in queftion, there muft have been an illicit importation of near . forty-two thoufand flaves, to preferve the black f^ population from decline *. But thinking it im- probable Such an ellimate however would be exceffive ; bc- caufe the Affembly has very unfairly averaged the mortality of the former period (during which the lofs upon 86^821 new negroes, by difeafes contraAed on the voyage, and by the feafoning, is included) for the purpofe of its comparifon with the latter period j during which, according to its own ftate- ments^ there have been no fuch fources of lofs. How great the lofs on thofe new negroes muft havft been, might be fhewn from the fame table ; for though 20,431 flaves were 'imported and retained in 1800, we find only 6,155, added by the returns for 1801, to the former population. Again, the large importation of 1807, by which 15,927 flaves were brought in and retained, increafed^ the next year's returns only by 4,476. The importation next in amount vras 11,309 in 1801, of which 1 1 ,039 were retained ; and yet the returns of i8c2 are only raifed above 1801 by 105 flaves. The Affembly neverthelefs, with its ufual accuracy and fairnefs, takes credit for all the apparent decreafe of the average lofs by mortality during the latter period, as the effeft of humane improvements ; hereby not only afTuming againft us, that there has been no fupply from importation ; but that in fuch a cafe there would be no faving of life, within the ifland by the 9L^al cefliation of the trade. 9 Tlfi ( 4i ) probable that a clandeftine trade has alually pre- vailed to near fo large an extent, I fliould anticipate a confiderable diminution in the returns of 1815, compared with that of 1808. Here, in the firfl: place, the table correfponds with the rational expedlation. The returns exhibit a lofsof 10,013 flaves.* I Ihould calculate however, on the fame premifes, that the apparent lofs in the latter period of feven years, would be very far lefs than in the former j becaufe, prior to 1808, there was no reafon for con- cealing the true amount of additions to the (lock by importations ; whereas fubfequent to that period the affumed additions from without, being all clan- deftine, are of courfe kept out of the account. In this refpet alfo the table fhews the expefted refult. The apparent lofs in the latter feven years is not one-fourth part of that in the former. The reader will foon be enabled to judge how far any indi- cation of humane improvementa is really to be found in thefe population accounts. He will find that if the increafe or decline of numbers by means alleged to be wholly natural, is the criterion of good or bad treatment by the mafter, the flares of Jamaica muft have been worfe treated fiqce the year 18 1 2, than before that period. I do not however adopt that conclufion ; becaufe I am fatisfied that the caufes of this apparent deterioration have not been natural but adventitious. * See the table in the appendix. Again, C 142 i Again, if I had fat down to calculate what the comparative refult would be in different portions of the laft feptennial period, I Ihould have confidered that the Felony Ad, which took, effedt on the i ft / September 1 8 1 1, muft have very materially checked j the contraband trade ; and ftiould therefore have 1 been led to conclude that its extent had probably been much the greateft during the former part of . the term in queftion ; nay perhaps great enough during that time to approach, if not fully, to equal and counterpoife, the natural lofs ; confequently that it would not be during the former, but the latter part of the term, that a declining population would be chiefly apparent by the annual returns. With this alfo, the table correfponds. We are not enabled indeed to compare equal por- tions of time ; there being no half-yearly returns j but whether we compare the firft three, or the firft four years, with the refidue of the term, our con- clufion will be ftrikingly confirmed. If we divide the period at 1 8 1 1 , there will be found, in the former portion of it, inftead of a diminution of numbers, a large increafe. But as the Affembly, by a ftratagem which I fhall foon develope, has attempted fo dif- credit the returns of that year ; I will for the prefent purpofe take the four firft years, ending in 18 la. The returns in that year are 319,912, being lefs than thofe of 1808 by 3,915, which gives an appa- rent lofs of only ^78 per annum j whereas the whole apparent ( 143 ) apparent lofs to 1815, being 10,013, there is a falling off during the laft three years of 6,098 j being an annual average ofj^yo^^^ This refult mufl: appear the more extraordinary to thofe who have been taught to believe that there has been no fmuggling in Jamaica, from the con- / fideration that a very great niortajhj confeffedly i attends the feafoning of ne wly-impor ted Africans ; I and confequently as v^e recede from 1807 *^^ 1808,, the feafons of the lall and great lawful importations, the annual lofs on the exifting flock ought pro- greffively to diminifh inflead of increafmg *. ^ Reafoning further on that which I believe to be the true hypothefis, I Ihould next anticipate that the returns for 181 1 would Ihew a great in- creafe of numbers In comparifon with 1810 ; if not even with any former year j becaufe the expedlation of the felonious penalties, for nearly a year preceding, mufl have given, at that time, a very flrong impulfe to the contraband trade. On the i5rh June 1810, Refolutlons were unanim mou/Iy voted by both Houfes of Parliament, on the motions of Lord Holland and Mr. Brougham, de- claratory of the indignation that was felt at the pre- valence of a contraband flave trade, and pledging the Houfes to take meafures early in the enfuing feflion, " to prevent fuch daring violations of the * The attempt to explain this by famine- and the influenza will be noticed hereafter, law." ( 144 ) law.** In the fpeech of Mr. Brougham, it was dlf- tinftly notified, that he would bring in a bill at the opening of the next feffion to declare Have trading felony ; and the plan was fo cordially received, that no doubt could remain of its adoption. The flave fmugglers therefore, and all the planters who were difpofed to purchafe from them, had timely notice of the impending felonious penalties ; and muft have feen that it was their bufmcfs to improve the intervening time to the utmofl. How ftrongly this lafl: anticipation is confirmed, the reader will perceive, to his furprife perhaps, if he turns to the table., He will find the returns for 1811, to he no lefsthan 326,830 y7(2i;tfj, being above f 3,000 more than at the laji period of lawful flave trade 'y and above 13,000 more than the numbers in 1815, the lafi in this account. It is not ftrange that the Jamaica Affembly fhould be anxious to deliver itfelf from this very awkward fat. The reader who confiders it, will probably rather wonder that the table made a part of the Report. But the paper was already public ; it was on the Journals of the Houfe ; and had been exhi- bited in this Country. It was convenient therefore to fet it forth, for the fake of certain explanatory gloffes of this very fad, which I have next to notice ; with the aid of which it was thought capable of fupporting one part of the Affembly 's cafe, without overthrowing another. The ( us ) The language employed by the Report for this purpofe is fo ingenioufly chofen, that I can neither do iuftice to the dexterity of its authors, nor to the caufe I am fupporting, without fetting it forth verbatim : " For many years returns have been made, and are to be found on the Journals of the Houfe of AiTembly, of the enflaved population. They have not the accuracy of our alual cenfus ; and fhew a number fomewhat under the truth. They are taken from the rolls for colleding the~\ poll-tax ; of which there is fome evafion, and inj making them up a few poor people are overlooked from charitable motives. The fame defcription of ' errors has always pervaded them ; and they are fufBciently accurate for comparing diftant periods ; with the exception of the years 1 8 09, 1 8 1 o, and 1 8 1 1 . In two of thofe years there was no poll-tax^ and the returns were made by the clerks of the vejiry by order cf the Houfe of Affembly. They were dif covered to have been in moft inftances taken from rolls of former years, and were found to be altogether incorrect, and muli be put out of queftion *." The whole of this paragraph is important ; but it is to the latter part of it, which I have printed in italics, that I would more immediately diret the reader's attention. Let him perufe it as often as he pleafes j and then tell me, if he can, which, and * Report, p. 30. K bow ^9W many of the returns entered on the Journals QJf the Houfe it mea,ns to repudiate, as " altogether ipcorreft, and to be put out of the queftion." Three years are excepted from that approach to eorrednefs, and that equable deviation from it,. which is attributed to the returns in general ; and yet the reafon afiigned for the exception is ex- prefsly reftrided to two of thofe years. Is it meant then that we are to rejedb three annual returns, becaufe two are defedive ; or is it the two only, that are to be rejcfted? Not only reafon, but gram- matical conftruftion, would lead us to the latter fenfe. Yet the effect of the well-contrived language is that all the three years are difcredited ; becaufe while told that two out of the three arc incorred, and to be put out of queftion, we are not enabled to diftinguifh the remaining year, to which the cenfure does not apply. It is the year 1809, or 18 1 o, or 18 1 1, which has the ordinary degree of truth, rnd may be taken into account; but which, of the three, the reporters do not choofe to inform us. A moft accurate corredion, no doubt, of inaccurate data, on this very important fubjed I If fuch ftrange ambiguity could be afcribed to heedlefsnefs, it would not be very creditable to the authors of the Report, efpecially in an account from which they proceed to draw conclufions deeply interefting to humanity j and in a paper containing virulent ( '47 ) tirulent reproach againft others for alleged incdti reftnefs of ftatement. But the charge I have here to bring againft the Affembly is of a much higher kind. It is I fear, too certain, that this oracular obfcurity was a ftudied artifice, m order to avoid that fair inference from the recorded retur:is of 1 8 1 1 J to which I have already adverted. The reader, I am perfuaded, will not deem this conftruftion harfli, when he not only finds that the efi*ed of the language is to involve the returns of that year in an objection that does not in truth apply to them ; but that the agent and partizans of the Aifembly in this country, mifled no doubt by its inftruftions, have given a falfe precifion to this art- fully indefinite ftatement, by exprefsly attributing the alleged incorre5lnefs, and its extraordinary caufe, to the year 1811, contrary to the fafts of the cafe* In the Appendix, for inftance, to the Brief Remarks the fame table is printed, with a marginal note, informing us that " in the years 1 8 1 o & 1 8 1 1 there were no givings.in under the poll tax ; and they are inaccurate as to the number of flaves *; " and in the body of the work, the loofe ftatement of the Report is thus exprefsly quoted, and applied to thofe years : " The roils are not completely accu- RsMAKRS, Appendix E. K 2 rate 1 ( 148 ) rate; the numbers dated in the years 1810 and 1 8 1 1 are erroneous. In thofe years there was no poll-tax ; and the accounts were taken from returns made to the Houfe of Alfembly by the clerks of the veftries, which were found to be very incorredl^ I* ' This pamphlet is generally afcribed to the agent for Jamaica; a gentleman the refpedability ofwhofe character ought to preclude the fufpicion that he would confcioufly lend himfelf to any unfair pur- pofe. If the work is his, therefore, his conftituents mud have mifled him by their private communica- tions ; though they were too cautious publicly to commit themfelves on the face of their Report, by an exprefs definite flatement, which their own written and recent laws might contradiO:. In oppofition, however, to his ftatements, I affert (and if a am wrong the means of refutation are at hand) that 1809 and 1810 are the only years to \ which the vague reprefentations of the AiTembly can \with any truth apply ; that there was no infular poll-tax -on flaves in 1809, ^^^f perhaps, in iS 10 t but that in 1 8 1 1 there was the ufual poll- y iaXf affefled by the fame returns as thofe of 1812, and all the former years comprifed in this table. An at was pafled for the purpofe in December * RemlakkS} p 23, 14. 18 10, (149 ) 7^10, thecuftomary period for paffing thofe annual tax bills, and it required the returns to be made as ufual on the 28th of March in the following year; from which confequently the tax rolls entered in the journals for 181 1 were made up in the cuftomary way. The fal being thus refcued from mifreprefenta- tion, let us turn back to the table, and fee how ftrongly it confirms the hypothefis on our fide; and how decifively it overthrows the flatements and rea- fonings of the Aflembly. The chief difficulty m fuppofing the importations forced by the approach of the felony act, to have produced the large returns of 181 1, was the enor- mous advance upon thofe of the preceding year ; viz. from 313,683, to 326,830, being a difference of no lefs than 13,147; but taking the returns of 1809 and 1 8 10 to be erroneous, this difficulty is removed ; as is that alfo of the enormous apparent lofs between thofe two years, viz, 1 0,03 1 . The returns of 1809 were very probably taken, as the Affembly fuggeft, from thofe of the preceding year. Of this indeed, there feems fufficient internal evidence ; for the difference between thefe and 1 808 Is only 1 13 Haves. Again, the very low returns of 1 8 1 o, were probably taken, asfar as they went, from former K 3 rolls, v/ ( ^5^ > rolls, and were wholly omitted perhaps in fonie of the pariflies. If there was no law to enforce the making them as ufual, nor any urgent public reafon for noticing defaults, fome of the parochial officers might naturally enough in the fecond year negleft to fend any returns at all. If we rejel thefe two years, we fhall have no data as to the meafure of increafe in i8ii, or the previous differences of numbers from the laft period of lawful importation in 1808 j. but we Ihall have on the whole, an iiicreafe o( 3,003 flaves>, prior to the felonious penaJiies, and a fubfequent decreafe of. the former being at the rate of 1,001, the latter 3,252, per annum. Thefe refults are not lefs indicatory of illicit trade, and of its redudion by the felony a6l, than thofe which would arife from the figures on the table^ fuppofing them all to be accurate ; though they would give lefs to be accounted for by the expecta- tion of that a6l in iBio-ii. I am neverthelefs inclined to believe, that the increafe of numbers by importation, between March 1810 and April i8ii,was extremely great; not only from the urgency of the motive for it, but on account of the great falling off in the following year^ when we find a redudion from 326,830 to 31 9,912 j a difference of 6918; whereas the average lofs of the ( Ml ) the four laft years is, as I have before obferved, only 3,252. This fudden and excefllve redu6\ion is moft naturally to be explained by a large recent im- portation of new negroes j added to the fudden ftop to that praSicc, which the terrors of the felony ad, when it firft took efied, was hkely for a time to occafion, till experience fhewed how eafily its penalties might be eluded in the Weft Indies, If the lofs of numbers in 1812 be thought too great to be credibly explained by thofe concurrent caufes, let the reader advert to the ftill ftronger effects produced by them, and even by the former caufe alone, in former inftances, as fhewn from the fame table in my preceding remarks *. While * See the note in p. 140. There is a confideration wlucL, it may be thought, fliould dimini{h in fome degee our eftimate of the importation forced by the expedation of the felony aAs in 1810-11 ; and propor- tionably increafe our eftimate of the clandeftine imports in general between March i8o3, and the time when that meafure was firft announced in the Weft Indies. The particular period of each year, to which the returns re- late, does not appear in the table, except in that of exports, ^hichis made up to the 30th September ; but in the body ot the Report (p.30 ) we are told that the returns of flavcs are made up to the 30th of March in each year. It .may be faid therefore that tthe felonious penalties did not take eifed in Jamaica till the ift K4' -of { >5* ) , While thefe confiderations ftrengtheri the proba- bility that the illicit trade in 1 8 lo- 1 1 was exceedingly great, it is yery ftriking to find fuch other official of September i8iJj the expeftation of them could not have increafed fo largely as I fuppofe the contraband trade prior to April in that year, without producing fome confiderable fur- ther efFeft in the four following months to the ift Auguft, when the hurricane feafon commences ; confequently, that if I afcribe much of the high returns of 1811 to this caufe, it ought alfo in fome degree to have aflifted thofe of 18 1 2 } which we find re markably low. This confideration however will be found to weigh but little, or not at all, if we confider, that from the 15th of June 18 10, when the refolutions of Parliament were unanimoufly voted, to the 30th March iSil, there was an interval of between nine and. ten months, during eight of which the certain and near approach of the felonious penalties muft have been known in the Weft Indies ; and that from the terms of the refolutions, and from the fpeeches introduftoryof them, it muft have been expeledthat the propofed law would be in operation early in the fpring of j8i i, Indeed this would aftually have happened, if the ftate of His Majefty's health, and the confequent appointment of a regency, had not prevented the meeting of Parlianient for the difpatch of bufinefs till the month of I^ebruary. It may reafonably be prefumed therefore, that ^11 who were difpofed to avail themfelves of the interval by importation's from Cuba or other neighbouring markets, had done fo, to the full extent of their wants and their means of payment, before the end of March. As the returns on the 30th of that month? exceeded thofe even of i8o8, by more than 3000 flaves, the dc, jpaand muft have been fully fupplied. c information ( I ) information as we have on this fubjek, pointing ftrongly the fame way. In the Weft India papers printed by the Houfe of Commons laft year, we have a return (the only one it would appear that was made to the Governor) of parochial rolls of flaves from 1800 to 1 8 12 inclufive*. It is from the parifh of Papers of 1815, p. 116. It feemg inconfiftent with the reprefentation I have cited from the Report, that any parifh could furnifti returns from 1800 to 1812, without exception of the years 1809-10 and 11, or either of them; and ftill more that they are all exprefsly defcribed in the official paper as " the numbers qfrfed to the publie and pari/h tax ^olls during each refpe3ive year J' The Report certainly leads us to imagine that there had been 80 poll-tax, public or parochial, during the two years fo ambi- guoufly defined and excepted ; though it feems ftrange that the Aflembly fliould have fent to the veftries for returns, if from fo notorious a caufe, the means of furnifhing them were wanting. On the other hand, if parochial poll-taxes had produced the ufual delivery of lifts to the veftries in every year, the ground pf the alleged inaccuracy, as to the two years, feems to fail j and indeed it appears from the Papers of 1804 and 1815, that the infular poll-tax rolls are always made out from returns made by the Have owners to the veftries of the particular parifties, and by them to the AfTembly. (See efpecially Governor ^orrifon's Letter to the Earl Bathurft in th Papers of 1815, f p. 103, -and the return therein referred to, p. 130.) The language of the Report therefore, on this point alfo, muft be incojr*^. I take it however to admit perhaps of this ex- planation! / i w ) 6f 8t. George ; and on referring to it, th^ refurns for I 8 1 1 wiii be found greatly to exceed thofe of the preceding year. There is ah advance froiil "^^y^Sli ^ '3>374> tn increafe of above two per Cent. This coincidence is the moreimpreflive, becaufe, like the general returns in the table, thofe of i8i i form the maximum of the flave population of St. George's, in comparifon ith all the other years comprifed in this parochial account ; and ih*re is in other refpects at clofe correfpondence between the fafts which it exhibits, and thofe in the general table. During the planatiori,.*' that there was do public or infular poll-tax on fljives for the year 1809 and 1810 ; and therefore no " givings in " or d^yery of lifts to the veftries, under the ordinary fanftions of the aftnual tax acts; that the Affembly therefore, in order to keep up the feries of its annual accounts, had called on the feftries for returns for 1809 and 18 10, founded on their ovjii parochial ajfefments, fuppofing that lifts had as lifual be^a given in for the purpofe of thofe afleffments ; but that it was found in fome parifhes, ( though not as it would appear in Saint George's,) that in confequence of the fufpenfion of the annual public tax act, with its regulations and penalties, the hfts for thofe years had not in general been returned ; that the veftries therefore, of fuch parifhes, reforted to the rolls of former years (which had probably regulated their parochial afleffments in the ^fence of new annual returns) and that fome of them perhaps lA^Sio, having nothing new to f^tisfy the requisition of the Affembly, fent no returns at all. laft ( ^ss ) laft year, for inftance, of lawful flave trade, there had been in the parochial, as in the infular roll, a ftill larger increafe ; and from that period a pro- greflive decline till 1 8 1 1 ; when the population at- tained its higheft amount. In 1812, it again fell ofFj and if this parifh account had been continued like the general one to 1 8 1 5, we fhould probably have found the decline equally progreffive. As far then as any light is direflly or collaterally thrown on the dark ftatement of the AlTembly, the interpretation of the Remarks is contradicted J and that very important piece of evidence, the amount )f the returns for 181 1, as it (lands on the Jour- ^s, is confirmed. Another decifive obfervation which prefents itfelf on this fubjed is, that the explanation, as well as the fa6t, brought forward by the Affembly, is plainly inapplicable to the year 1 8 1 1 ; and can relate, if true, only to the former years. The returns for 1 8 1 1 , could not polTiblyhave been taken from antece- dent tax rolls ; for this plain reafon, that they give an amount exceeding by above 3,000, the largeft amount of annual returns in any former year. ITiough deficiency may be accounted for in the way fuggefled, redundancy obvioufly admits of no fuch explanation -, nor any other that can be imagined. It ( >56 ) It Is enough however that the fa6t, as applied to 1 8 1 1 , is unfounded ; that there a6lually was a public poll-tax on flaves in that year, affeffcd by the cuf- tomary returns j and confequently that the amount of flaves in 1 8 1 1 , as entered on the Journals, has all the accuracy which the report afcribes to the poll-tax returns in general. Let the Aflembly and its advocates then ex- tricate themfelves how they can, from the well eftablifhed fafl:, that at the end of March 1 8 1 1 there f were above 3,000 flaves in Jamaica more than there j^i were at the termination of the lawful flave trade in { 1808 ; and let the reader in the mean time advert with me again to the important confequences of this faft, as to the queftion of contraband trade. Prior to the abolition, it is admitted, nay (for the fake of giving colour to the claim of fubfequent im- provement) it is pointed out, and infilled upon, that [ the average annual lofs by mortality was enormous; no lefs than 2 and ^ per cent on the medium num- bers, during the eight preceding years ; amounting I in all to a lofs of 56,048 lives beyond the number ' of births *. The utraofl; redudion of this mortality that is made out, even by the expedient of rejefting the returns of 1811, leaves an average annual lofs ^^ v^ ^ ' * Report, p. 30. Remarks, 24, 35. ^ between / < ^57 ) between 1 808 and 1 8 1 5 of about a half or -rV^s per cent. ; * and admitting the returns of 18 il to have the ufual degree of corrednefs, it will amount to above i and ^^ per cent, per annum from that year, without fuppofmg any fubfequent importation. On the AiTembly's own premifes the lofs by mortality in the three years from 1808 to .1811 mud have been much beyond the ordinary proportion, cou- fidering how unufually large a recent importation of new negroes from Africa there had been at that period, efpecially as the Report informs us that their condition was worfe than ufual, and produced a greater mortality. Yet the ftrange refult is, that from the laft lawful importations in 1808 to the returns in 1 8 1 1 , we have, inftead of diminution, an increafe of 3,003 flaves j being not very far Ihort of one per cent. ! - It is quite impoffible to account for this by natural means. The ordinary decline of native black popu- lation being found both before and behind this triennial period, we cannot fuppofe that during that period alone it was fuddenly lufpended, and in fo large a degree reverfed. Acccording to the average lofs in the three preceding years, there ought to have been found in 18 11, fuppofmg the medium of whole numbers nearly equal, a decreafe of about 14,000 * Remarks, 1$. ilaves. ( 5S ) ^aves, Inftead of an augmentation of 3,000. Ac- cording to the average lofs in the three next follow- kig years, the decreafe fliould have been about 1 1,000. If we take even this lower ratio, we have an cxcefs of 14,000 flaves in 18 11, for which no other caufe than illicit importation has been, or can be affigned. I am aware that many readers, prepoffeffed with the views that have been fo affiduoufly propagated as to the cafe of Jamaica, will find it difficult to believe that fo large a number as 14,000 flaves could have been imported there in three years. It may not be ufelefs therefore to add to our former llatements, as to the facility of clandeftine importations in general, fome other facts which apply to Jamaica in particular. I the rather do fo, becaufe the interefling paper Vvhich you lately received, and by defire of the writer put into my hands, has opened and enlarged my own former ideas on this fubjefl:. You know that I am perfonally a flranger to Jamaica; but the intelligent author of that paper, on whofe informa- tion we are both led by much experience of his correftnefs to rely, was ftationed as an officer of the navy at that ifland, and was an eye^witnefs of the fadls he relates. Of tl^eir general charader I was before aware ; ( <59 ) aware ; but never having refided in any Weft Indi& ifland poflefling a free port, or much vifited by the Spanifli fmugglers, I own that my views of the means of introducing flaves into Jamaica under Spanifh colours, were, till I read that paper, very in- definite ; and ray eftimate of the probable extent of the pradlice, far below that which I am now inclined to adopt. The beft and faireft ufe of this valuable informa. tion, will be the extraling from it fuch paffages of i^ public nature as feem to me moft material, in the author's own words. I therefore fubmit to the reader the following extrads, relying that you will obtain for me their Author's permiffion to publilh them before this work is out of prefs.* " I fhall in the firft place,'* (he fays) *^ make k manifeft through what means the great ifland of Jamaica may ftill, in defiance to the exifting laws, be fupplied with flaves to the extent of feveral thoufands annually ; even too were the unfortunate vidims carried in the face of Britifli cruizers, and landed in noon-day at Kingfton." " It may be neceifary to refer to the great chart of thofe feas, and look at the local and commercial fituations of Jamaica with Cuba and the Spanifli Main. Herein * Thia penniflion has been fince obtained. you'll ( i5o ) you'll find that for a diftance of nearly fix hundred miles, the fouth fide of Cuba, that which is conti-. guous to Jamaica, prefents innumerable creeks and harbours, capable of holding the largeft veffels ; but little known to any except the falfe traders*," of Spain ; and wherein there is not the fmalleft veftige of either town or cuftom-houfe, to check, if the Spanifh Government was inclined, any illicit pradices on the Britilh abolition laws. I mention this as ab- folutc faft, from having landed on many parts of the coaft of Cuba ; and fo little known are many of thofe places, that I recoiled about the year 1806, French privateers taking conftant flielter in one of thofe inlets, called the hidden port; and although the fea was fwarming with Bridlh crui- zers, yet their place of refort was not found out till that late period of the war ; and not till they bad committed the grcateft depredations on the trade of Jamaica. Such are the many haunts of conceal- ment the iiland of Cuba affords to the Spanifh falfe traders, fuch are the facilities it prefents to the Britifh fmugglcrs of human flefh ; and moft of thofe places are within a night's fail of Jamaica. Moreover, the latter ifland abounds with equal facilities of creeks^ inlets, and fhoals, wherein no fhip of war dare ap- proach, and where there are neither cuftom-houfe or officers, to check any illicit practices.'* The name, as I underftand, that the Spanifh fmuggler are known by in that part of the world, It ( i6i ) *' It now remains to notice, by what claffes of velTels and perfons fmuggling may be cfFeQed, without the poffibility of detedion. The extreme jealoufy of the Spanifh government at all ages, in not admitting into the colonies any but their own manufadures, and prohibiting all others under the feverefl: penalties, and the circumftance that Britifh goods can be had at Jamaica perhaps fifty per cent, cheaper, have given rife to a numerous clafs of veffels frequenting Jamaica under the Spanifh flag, called falfe traders. Thofe veffels trade and are encouraged there on the fame principle as our fmugglers are on the coafls of Holland and France." " They are veffels from twenty to two hundred tons burthen; and bringing with them dol- lars, fuch is their confequence with the mercantile and every other interefl at Jamaica, that I believe that ifland would often be v;ithout hard cafh but for the Spanifh falfe traders.**-" I believe the naval officers were diredled not to give them the fmallefl alarm or caufe of jealoufy ; and that it would be deemed as injurious to the mercantile body, that one of thofe Spaniards fhould be offended at Jamaica, as the late commotion amongfl the mandarines at Canton had likely to have proved in our China tfade. 1 have heard it faid fuch is the courtefy fhewn them, that the magiflrates have connived at ads of atrocity committed by them in the flreets of Kingflon." *' Great certainly is the influence which they poffefa L amongft ( l6^ ) amongfl; all clafTes in the ifland" They arc invariably well manned ; carrying from twenty to fifty men each, being a mixture of blacks and coloured people, with a few whites ; but being engaged in trade illicit by their own laws, they come to Jamaica without any document to fhew the number of their crew. Hence arifes the impoflibility, were the cuftomhoufe officer* fb inclined, or could they do it without alarm- ing the mercantile interefls, to trace what number of men they may bring to the ifland for clan- deftine purpofes. The fame difficulty will occur to the captains of any Britifh cruizers boarding them on their paflage from Cuba or the Spanifli Main ; and indeed failing as they do under the go- vernor's pafs, and prote6ted by all the colonial and mercantile interefts, the Spaniard might openly admit the whole of the crew to be his flaves, and whom he tliinks proper to employ as mariners." " What then would be the refult ? Unlefs the naval captain would facrifice the friendfhip and fociety of the members of the Aflembly, and other leading men in the colony, and condefcend to watch day by day on the wharfs, and at night rifk affaffination in the ftreets of Kingfton, to deted the Spaniard in the very al of felling hisfuppofed mariners, they could .not convia him of any of the penalties of the aboli- tion laws. The Spaniih trader befides and his agent 6 have ( ifis ) have many means of efcaping detelion. In the dead of the night they may land their vidims, and before the next- fun they arc difperfed in many dif- ferent diredlions.*' " It next remains to notice the probable number of veiTels employed in the falfe trade between. Cuba and Jamaica. Herein, not having reference to any cuftom-houfe accounts, I mufl be guided entirely by my own recolledion of the paffing events ; and by an impartial review of the fubjeft within. my own breafl." " During the years 1805. and *^^7j being em- ployed in one of His Majefty's (hips on the Janiaica ftation, on leaving harbour for fea, I have feen twenty of thofe veflels at a time lying at Kingfton ; and on our cruizing ground between the N. E. end of Ja- maica and Cuba, we have met with feven or, eight of thofe veffels daily. It is probable at the time of our leaving Port Royal, there were many others laying at Martha-brae, Montego-bay, Morant-bay, Lucie, and other parts of the Ifland which I did not fee. Hence, from the number we left at Kingfton, thofe we met with at fea, and the number that might be in other ports of the Ifland it is, I am fully con- vinced, a moderate calculation to fuppofc that there are not lefs than fixty falfe traders and other veflels running between Jamaica and Cuba;" L2 "They ( i64 ) '* They may finlfli a voyage out and home in a week ; but in the fubjoined cftimate I have allowed them three weeks ; and averaging great and fniall, they may bring ten negroes each time, difguifed as mariners amongfl their crew, without being even fuf- pefted of any clandeftine pra6lices. Hence each felfe trader may fniuggle from Cuba to Jamaica one hundred and feventy negroes in the year ; and the Cxty may bring ten thoufand two hundred." "Befides thofe veffels from Cuba, I eftimate there are thirty fimilar veffels trading to Jamaica from the Spanifh Main. To each of thofe I will allow five weeks to perform the voyage, or ten voyages in the year, and that they may fmuggle ten flaves each trip." ** There are befides thofe again, another clafs of veffels failing from Jamaica under the Britifh flag, called force traders. They are large veffels equipped, armed, and manned almoft equal to fhips of war, for the purpofe of forcing trade on the Spanifh Main. I have met with thofe veffels in a very great extent of coaft, from the gulph of Paria to the very ihores of Carthagena and the bay of Campeachy. They have innumerable facilities of fmuggling flaves into Jamaica and other Britifli iflands." I will ( i65 ) " I will fuppofe the number of force traders fail- ing from Jamaica under the Britifh Flag to be twenty- five, that they can make a voyage in eight weeks, or fix voyages in the year, and only fuppofe them to bring ten flaves each time, whereas they may bring double the number without any fufpicion. From the whole wc may form fome eftimate of the fum of human mifery, which, notwithftanding the Britifli abolition, the much injured children of Africa may ftill be doomed to fuffer through thefe contraband channels. Sixty Spanifh falfe traders between Cuba and' Jamaica, making a voyage in three weeks or feven- Annually, teen voyages in the year, and bringing each time > 10,200 10 negroes difguifed as mariners or otherwife con- I eealed in the veflel, - - -J Thirty do. do. from the Spanifh Main and Ja-* maica, making a voyage in 5 weeks, or ten voy- ages in the year,: and- banging each time ten ^ ^* negroes, - ^^ ^* - Twenty-five Britifh force traders from Jamaica "\ to dififerent parts of the Spanifh Main, making fix f voyages in the year, and bringing each time, ten ( *^ negroes. 10 j! Total annual importation of flaves - 14,700 " Here then is an annual amount of above fourteen ; thoufand flaves, which the ifland of Jamaica may ftill be fupplied with in fpite of the exifting laws. Though L3 the ( i66 ) the above eftimate is founded on my own recollec- tion, and my guefs of the probable number of veffels may very poffibly be wrong ; I have given my reafons for it, and feel the fmcereft convidion the amount is not exaggerated." Such are the views which local obfervation and experience have impreffed on the mind of an intel- ligent fenfible man. He allows me to add his name if I deem it of importance to do fo ; but I am not of that opinion; for his calculations mufl (land after all on their intrinfic probability, and his fads in their general charader will hardly be difputed, or if doubted can be eafily proved. He has not been at Jamaica fmce the abolition took place, therefore can ftate nothing beyond his belief as to the atual pradice of thofe expedients, the facility of which he has fhewn. That his calculations are accurate or nearly fo, it is not at all neceflary to maintain ; for if we (hould fuppofe them vaftly to exceed the proba- bility of the cafe, and that the number of Haves capable of being annually imported by the means he defcribes, does not amount to one-third part even of his eflimate, enough would ftill remain to obviate the objedion which 1 anticipated, and to fhew that there is no improbability in the largeft conclufion as to numbers imported, that may be drawn from the poll-tax returns. I will ( i<57 ) I will not therefore detain the reader with further cxtradts from the fame paper, though it contains various fafts and arguments confirmatory of the opinions I have cited. His guefs as to the ex- tent of the trade with the Spanifh colonies, might be corre6le4 perhaps, or confirmed, by official ac- counts to be found in the Journals of Parliament, if I had time to fearch for them ; but that the fpecies of intercourfe between Cuba and Jamaica which he defcribes, is very copious and frequent, is too noto- rious to be denied. He fpeaks of a period nine years ago j and I am not able to afcertain whether it increafed or declined fubfequent to the abolition, when the pacific relations between the Spanifli and Englifh flags were reftored. The mod important part of this information how- ever is, that which points out the undeniably fafe and eafy means afforded by this Spanifh trade, what- ever be its extent, of introducing flaves into Jamaica, openly, in the face of day, without the flighteft rilk of interception on the paffage, or fubfequent punifli- ment ; nay without the commiffion of any offence againft the abolition ads that is in any cafe capable of proof. That the Spanifh fmuggler from the nature of his trade is a chartered libertine in our colonial ports, has no mufter roll or other papers, is rarely if ever L 4 fearched ( '68 ) fearched by oar cruizers on his pafl'age, and is too popular to be fafely detained for examination, are fads beyond difpute. Should he chance however to be boarded and fearched by a naval or cuftom-houfe officer, he has only to call the negroes, who may be fecn on board, his mariners or fervant ; and if by a fimilar accident he fhould be vifited on his return, by the fame officer, and the reduftion of his num- bers be perceived (coincidences plainly in the higheft degree improbable) he would only have to fay, that the miffing flaves had deftrted. Strong indeed muft be the proof to the contrary, that would juftify or make it fafe to detain him. As to his tranfadions on fliore, after landing his flaves, they would be perfeftly fafe, for reafons already affigned ; and if a planter were openly to buy a flave thus introduced, without a previous participation in the a6t, it would not amount to felony, or any other penal offence againft the ads for abolifhing the flave trade. Thefe confiderations raife a very high pro- bability that the SpaniOi trade, permitted as it is tn the free-por-^s by law, and connived at where not lb, permitted, in every Weft India ifland, has been, ^ great vehicle for the illicit introdudion of flaves ; and without a regiftry I fee no poffible means of fiiutting up this fource of fupply, that would not greatly embarrafs an intercourfe very valuable to our manufadurers and merchants. Jamaica ( 69 ) Jamaica has, and from local circumftances always muft have, the chief fhare of this trade with the Spanifh colonies ; efpecially with the great adjacent ifland of Cuba, with Carthagena and Vera Cruz ; In other words, almoft with every colony in which Spain raifes fugar, and confequently encourages the flave trade. As to Cuba, in which the great Spanifh Guinea markets now only exift, Jamaica may be faid to have a monopoly of that commerce, contraband by Spanifh law, which it carries on with the Britifti Weft Indies. A regiftry then, inftead of being lefs neceffary in Jamaica than in our other colonies, is more eflfential there for the effed^ual prevention of flave trade, than in any other part of the King's dominions, our newly acquired colonies in Dutch Guiana excepted . We have there, chiefi^ or folely, an allowed and perpetual inter- courfe with a foreign and flave-trading coaft ; aa intercourfe too extenfive to be watched, too delicate to be regulated, and too valuable to be renounced. I have now finifhed the obfervations which it feemed proper to make on the population accounts with which we are furniflied from Jamaica, and on . ?' ; ; ly ^,. ^. ^. ^ - t .-;..., ^ I here fuppofe the French aboUtion to be efFeftual. Ifnot^ fome of the Windward and Leeward lilands may have equaj facilities o contraband flave trade. i^iijiilfai the ( I70 ) the evidence from that ifland in general, as to the non -importation of flaves. * By * I had rcferved the flatement in the Report as to the fcarcity and ficknefs which are faid to have counterafted the progrefs of humane improvements, for a future divifion of my fubjedl, the alleged melioration in the treatment of the flaves fince the abolition ; but perceiving that it v?i.l be neceflary to omit that topic altogether in the prefent letter, I ought nowr to notice thofe parts of the Jamaica Papers, as far as they apply to the argument on the population returns. The Reporters, notwithftanding their efcape from the returns of 1811, found it hard to reconcile their theory v?ith their fafts ; becaufe the unimpeached returns of 1812 mani- fefted, as we Jiave feen, that the numbers had not declined prior to that date, in a proportion half fo great as in the laft three years. In the four years that immediately followed the abo. Ktion, (during which, on the Aflembly's own views, the mortality ought to have been far the greateft,) the apparent lofs was only 979 per annum ; but in the following three years, I upon a reduced amount of population, it averaged no lefi ^ than 2033. The returns of 18 12 were not to be difpofed of like thofe of 181 1 } for they had been tranfmitted officially two or thre years before to His Majefty's Government, as returns that might be relied upon for the information of Parliament ; other- wife we fhould no doubt have had a fourth year added to the oracular paragraph. In this diftrefs the Affembly had recourfe to its ufual ex- pedients on all emergencies of this kind, the bringing forward one of thofe ** ordinary extraordinaries " of the Weft Indies, a fatal epidemic difeafe. Accordingly three medical gentlemen were examined, and two of them who praftife in two different parifhes of [ By no other colony has the attempt yet been made to encounter by evidence, or matter fo called, the oftheiOand, fpeak of an influenza which had produced very great mortality in their diftrifts. One of them adds, it has pre- Tailed generally throughout the ifland. ( Report, p. 59 to 63.) The period however of this epidemic is left remarkably ob- fcure. One of them. Dr. Sells, fays, it was in the years 181 1, 1812, and 1813. Another, Doctor Maclashan, confines it to'one year, Cnce the abolition of the flave trade, but in what year examinant does not recoiled ;" adding however, " that the f ami dif order hasjince occurred occajionally ; hut hy no means t with the fame fatal effeSs:' The third phyfician, Dr. Quier, does not notice this epidemic at all; but in anfwer to the queftion whether, fince the abolition of the flave trade, any unufual diforderg had been prevalent, or any peculiar caufes occurred to occafion an increafed mortality, he afcribed the decreafe principally to the great importation of flaves, of a bad quality, immediately before the abolition, (p. 59.) 1;. All thefe witnelTes agree, in afcribing to the latter caufe much of the mortality that enfued ; which, on their views and thofe of the Affembly, muft have affedted the four years prior to 1812, much more than the three years that followed. Another and very important objedion to the ufe the Aflem- bly would make of their evidence, is, that 1 8 1 1 was confefledly the firfl:, if not the only influenza year ; and it feems tlie only natural way of reconciling the evidence of Dr. Maclashan with that of Dr. Sells, to fuppofe that the malignity was greatefl: by far in the firft feafon, and that it was fo far miti- gated (as ufual with new epidemics) after a certain period, or ita proper treatment fo much better underftood, in 1812 and 'i^lZ* ^^^^ though in fome meafure preralent for three years, Dr. M.'g ( i7 ) the flatements of our Report f, though I doubt not that they are all able to make out as good a cafe as that of Jamaica J by the fame kind of materials. I have Dr. M.'s ideas led him to afcribe the difeafe almoft exclu- fively to the firft. At all events its fatal effefts in rRi I, and to March 30th i8i2, muft have operated to diminifh the returns of that period ; and confequently, like the importations of 1807-8, they increafe the difficulty which the Affembly thus vainly tried to diminifh. On the probable explanation however which 1 have offered, let the reader advert to the new confirmation which is gained of the accuracy of the returns of 181 1. We have here a new faft which more fully removes the only apparent improbability on the face of that year's returns, and thofe of 1 8 x 2 taken together. If the caufesi have before affigned are not thought fully adequate to explain fatisfaAorily the great falling off in the ktter year, the effefts of this fatal epidemic may be taken into the account. The Reporters, finding the influenza would not quite anfwer their purpofe, reinforced themfelves with the affertion that in 18 13 and 1814 there was " afcarelty approaching to famine ; and that many lives >v..' ( ^77 ) trade, lucrative in a high degree to both tht fellers and the buyers, or at lead fuppofed by them to be fo ; a law too which did violence to rooted prejudice, inveterate habits, and ftrong popular feelings, ih the places where it was to operate, has not been willingly, or without neceflity obeyed. This prefumption is ftrongly fortified by the ardent and pertinacious oppofition which was long made to the palling of the law ;. and the pre- vious declarations of thofe who were to be affected tnoderJite terms, the latter will naturally prefer the recruiting their gangs " by purchafa ivif/jin the ifland." It is probable, therefore, that the Bahamas hAve nbt yet beert piuch or at all ufed as entrepott for the flave trade of Jamaica; or other Btitifli colonies; but it may neverthelefs with certainty- be forefeen, that they would be fo ufed, if exempted from the ireftridion* of a regiftry, while other Britifli eolonie* were f ubjeded to them. It was in this view otily that We propofed to include thofe iQands in the general fyftem ; and in proof of it, I think I can anfwer for the friends of the bill, that they will confent to except the Bahamas, if it is preferred, on theit part, to reftrain the exportation of (laves from thence to all other colonies under His Majefty's dominion, " in which flavery is eftablifhed by law." If the agent of this colony had thought fit to apply fo thrf promoters of the Bill, he might not only have had the offer of this exception, but a voluntary juftification of his eonftituentt from the charge they are fo anxious to repel. I can fcarcely however regret that this conciliatory courfe ta not taken, when I confider how much fame the learned agent would have loft, and how much information and enter- tainment the world would have loft, if his very erudite, and profoundly philofophical, pohtical, ethical, theological, poetical, Irtw^, and Hhral introdu^ion had been fopprefled. M by ( 178 ) by It, that its reftrldions would not be obferved. That fuch anticipations have been verified we cannot prove by diredt evidence of particular offences ; but that inability has been fliewn to arife from the nature of the cafe ; and to be perfectly con- fident with the belief that clandeftine violations of the Abolition Ad have abounded in all our iflands. Circumftances however were noticed in our Report which ftrongly indicate that this law is not generally efficient, becaufe effeds that would naturally flow from it if refpeded, have not been produced. Prices of the commodity fhut out by it, have not rifen ; local inftitutions, have not been adapted to it; abufes incompatible with its falutary operation, have not been reformed. It was calculated to produce radical changes in the interior fyftem of our fugar colonies i but that fyftem has not been changed. In addition to fuch antecedent probabilities, and fuch circumftancial evidence of the general event, we are now fuinifhed by our opponents themfelves with proofs of a more direct and decifive kind. The periodical returns of the black population in our largeft colony, are found to exhibit phenomena, which can only be explained by the prevalence of a contraband flave trade ; and the unfair attempts to mutilate this important evidence, has multiplied its force. On the other fide, what is oppofed to us that defervesthe name of proof? The non-belief of two 9 : . witneffes, ( 179 ) witneffes, and the *^ do not know " of a few more, though coupled with a difcovery that one cafe of fmuggling has been judicially eftablifhed, and of cireumftances that raife an irrefiftible prefumption of many like offences having notorioufly occurred^ are the whole of the boafted evidence which attefts the entire innocence of Jamaica ** beyond the pojjt* hility of cavil or doubt !" Can there be a moment's hefitation in deciding on which fide the high probability, not to fay the demon- ftration, lies ? If there be, let it be again remem- bered by which party the means of certainty on this great fubjed have been fought for ; and by which they have been withheld or deftroyed. The Abo- litionifts have long and anxioufly defired to obtain, the Affemblies have as long and obftinately refufed to tranfmit or provide, the proper evidence of natural increafe or decline in their black population. The Government and the Parliament feconded our wiflies to learn periodically the amount of the births and deaths among the flaves ; data which in conjundion with the whole numbers in 1808, and at the prefent period, would have placed this queflion out of doubt. But the Affemblies con- tumacioufly refufed to the Imperial Legiflature, in- formation which it has fo deep an interefl: in, fo clear a right, fo facred a duty to demand. They did ftill worfe. In many of our iflands they had amufed us with laws which required annual returns to be made to themfelves, containing the very in^ i?3jitiiiift' M 2 formatioa ( |8o ) fbrraatlon fo required ; but thofe laws have every where been left unexecuted, without one attempt to enforce them ; and in fome colonies, Jamaica ia particular, have been fmce repealed or fufiered to expire.* If * The Agent of Jamaica, if report rightly afcribes the pamphlet called Brief Remarks to him, has fallen into a ftrange miftake on this very important fubjeft, which I omitted to notice in the proper place, though of no fmall importance. He exprefsly tell* his readers " that m Jamaica a return h annually made to the par'i/h vejlry^ hy the overfeer of each eflc^te or plantatio9i fifUing the number of negroes on the property ^ A9C0MPa?iii^P ]5* A LIST OF INCREASE AND DECREASE, "WHEREIN THE CAUSE OP THE DEATH OF EACH NEGRO MUST BE STATED AND- SWORN TO BY THP RESIDENT SURGEON.'^ (p. 34.) It is hardly credible that the refpeftable gentleman alluded to l^ould have been heedlefs enough to eomihit himfelf |j fuch 9 propofition. The writer, whoever he is, had before him, the Jamaica Re- port, in which the AfTembly takes much pains to make out, circuitoufly, that native population has gone nearer to maintain itfelf fince the abolition than before ; and he repeats its reafoning. How could it efcape Uim then, that if the returns he fpeaks pf were aftually made, fuch argument? CQuld have bad no place. The annual returns of many years might have been produced to fliew the balances between births and'deaths in a direft and decifivc way. They would alfo, when compared with the whole numbers , returned, have fettled the main quellion, for thofe years, as to Hlicit trade. In aflerting therefore that fuch evidenc? eJpAs Ije virtually tells us that all his own arguments^ and thpfe of the Aflembly, on the fubjeft, are frivolous, ufelefs and e>{afiv?. ' But he liad alfo b'efbre Kim the Parliaiiieri'tarjr Papers of 1815, to which I have fo often referred.: for he*tt#s \lftm ill hi twcnty-firft page ; and thefc%ovild have told him in varioiw places ( 1I ) If then the evidence can ftlfl be regarded as doubtful, never was there a c^(6 in which the right fule of detifion was ni^Ofe cfeaf. Nev6r wis tiicti an inrtanee Jh' which' it was rtl6re rationat, or mord jiiit, to prefume againft tlie parties from whofewilful choice the doiibt has arifen. If dui* judgement ftumbles, it is becaufe they have extinguiflled the Jjtmp. placet, on the authority of the governor and public officers of Jamaica, that no returns of births or deaths of flaves are made, or ftave been required' by any law irifoi-ce fiiice 1^67. (See tndfe , Papers, p. 104, 11*5, il<>, 122, &'c andfupra 129, 130, 131.) \ He ventures to reprefent not only that fuch returns tre made, but that they are required by an cxifting law ; for the ftatement is given by him as an inftance of colonial laws already in force^' which ** dnjkver fuch purpofei of a regiflry at arcmofi gbvioujly ufeful^ (fame page.) What a pity it i, that he did not look into the laft Confoli- \ dation Slave A A, and perceive that all the provifibns of the former Aft, as to thefe returns, had flipped away feven yeari ago! (fuprap. 30.) Or rather how /or/wna/r is it that thit writer (if really the refpeftable planter and merchant who it agent for Jamaica) fell into thefe ftrange miftakes ! for without them his official duty perhaps would have withftood tlie fug- geftions of hia candour, aiid deprived us' of his valuable teftimony. Had he known that the returns in quellion were to be found only in the dea^ letter 'of an act o? the Aflemblyi fince repealed by his cbnftituefits, that they' neveir' had* been" made, except on claims for bounties, and had from the time of the abolition ceafed -to , be required by law ; I (hould probably not have been able to invoke his authority as I nowMo, for the propofition, . that ^the enforcing fuch returns, is *' apurpoft oftheresjflcr hill mo^ M 3 After ( ^82 ) After having thus invefligated the evidence as to the pad violations of the abolition afts, (a point which I would not have difcuffed at all, had it been capable of being feparated from the practical quef- tion as properly in the judgment of others, as in my own) I fhould proceed to defend, againfl our numerous antagonifts, upon other grounds, both the principle of our bill and its particular provifions, and to difcufs the two remaining divifions of my fubjed, if the near approach of your motion for the re-introduftion of the bill into Parliament, did not admonifh me that it is high time to bring this fecond letter to a clofe. It was demonflrated in our Report, that the meafure was neceflary, not merely to prevent the clandeftine introdudion of Africans into our colo- nies, and to prevent the retaining free men in per- petual bondage there j but by creating an evident impradicability of thofe abufes, to prepare both the motives, and the means, of effectual improvements in the condition of the flaves. The pad negledl of thofe improvements, and the ' flubborn adherence of the Aflemblies to principles of legiflative policy opppftte to the interefts of native population, were alfo adduced as proofs tlwt the abolition was not regarded by them as an effeo^ tuaVand permanent law. On ( '83 ) On thefe grounds we are encountered with much contradidion in point of fadl, and with fome oppo- fition of moral and prudential principle, to both of which I am eager to reply ; but as confiderations to the force of which I reluctantly yield, have rightly induced you not to prefs your bill beyond a firft: reading in the prefent Seflion of Parliament, I {hall find another opportunity for thofe difcuflions. I may therefore, without impropriety, poftpone them now J and may defer with little regret, a reply to thofe objections to the bill which relate to its particu- lar provifions, not to its principle ; and therefore cannot regularly come under the confideration of Parliament till it goes to a Committee. To that part of the Jamaica Report, which refpets the legal condition and treatment of the flaves, it would not be poflible to give an anfwer adequate to the great moral and political importance of the fub- jed, in a publication like the prefent ; I therefore am the more eafily reconciled to the neceffity of referving thofe topics in general, for future con- fideration. But if my life and health fhall be pre- ferved a few months longer, my debt to the moft helplefs and moft injured of mankind, the unfortu- nate colonial flaves, fhall be fully paid. The know- ledge which I poffcfs of their unparalleled wrongs and miferies fhall not die with me, but be fpread before the eyes of that country by which oppreffion i:0' M 4 and ( 84 ) and inhumanity will not be tolerated, mucli kfs patronifed and upheld, when their true chara^ers. are known. I fhall then have to deteO: and expofe to merited, cenfure many aj'ts by which European idejats and. feelings have been mifled on this inlereiting; fubjeft ; and among them mifreprefentations yeC unnoticed in this lafl Jamaica Report*. The public * I Here' allude, not to a work, the plan of which is newly CDnceivcdi or on' the execution of which I have y^^t to enter-. It is known to many of my private friends, and many, more of. the friends of the great African caufe, that, prior to the abo- lition of the flave trade, I had made laborious preparations for publifhing a complete delineation of Weft Indian flavery, as it cxifts both in law and pra6tice ; with demonftrations of every* fat in difpute, taken exclufively from the teftimony of witnefiW produced by the opponents of the abolition, or froiti writers orf that fide of the controverfy. I had nearly finiihed, and badt aftually printed a large impreffion of, the firft part of the work^ the delineation of the ftate in point of law, illuftrated by copious comparifons with the flave codes of other countries antient and* modern; when the fudden triumpK ofoHii* ciufe in March: 1807,' pot a ftop to my labours ; and as I then hoped a final one.. ' ;^'* Our antagonifts moft unjuftly allege' againll us, that we tenf aduated by a fpirit of hoftility to our fellow-fubjefts of the Weft Indies, and take pleafure in expofiiig their fyftem to:^^ j^blic odium ; but my conduft, in this inftance, might in my* cafe at leaft, fufBciently repel that charge. I was-wilKhg, an3' earaeftly defirouA to crifie the ftitite of long' and painftiK laMirrs,' ( "85 ) public fhall then be enabled fo judge from mdifputa- ble premifes, whether the prefent boafts of refor- mation, as having been made within the lafl twenty years, are better founded than thofe which, more than twenty years ago, told us there was nothing to reform ; whether the flavery of our fugar colo- nies is not, in its radical abufes, fuch as it has alwayg been ; and whether there is, or ever was^ upon earth,, a fpecies of bondage fo degrading, odious^ and fevere. Mean time there are two or three points on which the Report and the Pamphlets controvert our flate- ments and reafoning in this part of the cafe, as to which I will rather hint at, than give the reply. labours, as well as confidcrable expence, becaufe I had the krongeft dlfinolinatioir togive pain to the feelings of my con- ne^ons and friends ^in the colonies, and' of Weil India pro* prietors in general, by the cxpofure of the odious fyilem ia tehich they were engaged. But my views on this fubjedl have been confiftent and uni- form ; I nerer for a moment regarded the abolition as efFeftual or permanent, except in the hope that it would be followed up by a regiftry. Unlefs this hope fhould be realized, I expeftcd no reformation worth the name, in the law or praftice of flavery^r Now therefore, when after nine years patient expedtation, I find that the indifpenfable meafure of a Regifter Bill is not likely to^be obtained without a full appeal to the moral feelings of the coun- try^ Irefume my long fufpended labours ; and mean to perform the painful but peceffary duty, of fubmitting my work to the public J an intention wiiich I take thi opportunity to an- "**"' The ( 186 ) The annexation of flaves to the foil, is oppofed by the puerile argument, that it would be injurious to the rights of creditors ; as if the fame legiflative au- thority that ordained the one, could not proted the other. What is the remedy of the creditors now, in that moft ordinary cafe, executions againft eftates the flaves of which are in mortgage with the land ? Why, in other cafes as in this, fliould not the title to both be fold together ; and the overplus of the pro- ceeds, if any, given to the owner ? But let them fet- tle this point with their own partizans, who fup- ported their hiftorian and apologifl: Mr. Bryan Edwards in the partial repeal of the flat. 5 Geo. 2. cap. 7. and reproached the abolitionifts with inhumanity for not having taken the lead in that meafure ! * They defend their inconfiftent negled of the fame reform, by a fuggeflion equally frivolous : The mafter would be ruined, and the negroes would be ftarved, if they could not be removed from an ex- haufted eflate. Was it impoflible then to except the cafe of an eftate which the owner abandoned ; and to annex them to his new fettlement in its ftead? But this is of a piece with fome of their many captious objedions to the Regifter Bill. If a fmgle * See Edwards's Hiftory of the Weft Indies^ jraLii. ,l)ook 4* ( S7 ) \k or two out of the reafon, or the convenient opera- tionof a general rule canbe imagined, their legiflativc; maxim is, not to admit an exception, but to reject the rule. If conformity to the abolition had been in- tended by them, a hundred fuch idle objedions would notbave arrefted for one hour a meafure neceflary to prevent the ruin that raufl plainly enfue from llrip- pingan eftate of its flaves. Policy would have dictated this reformation, though humanity had failed. In the weak attempt to juflify their opprobrious laws reftraining manumiffions, how different are their views. Here, they rafhly and cruelly legiflatc by an indifcriminate general rule, becaufe they find, or pretend to find, fome cafes in which it is expedient. Becaufe old and infirm flaves^ may be enfranchifed and left without fupport ; therefore the young, the vigorous, the induftrious, the meritorious, are to be held in flavery for life, though the mafter may defire to give them freedom, unlefs an enormous fine be added to the donation. Jamaica, here indeed, defends herfelf by the plea that a bond with fureties only is now taken, and by the aflertion that the law is indulgently conftrued. The other oppreffionwas not imputed to her; though the Report, with its ufual correctnefs, rails at us for the alleged imputation. But what fay Barbadoes, St. Vincent, Grenada, St. Chriftopher, &c. for their innovating ( '85 ) innovating laws, which tai cnfranchifements with enormous fums froni j^ioo. to ^^300. j and even! believe .^500. each ? No exception whatever is made in favor of the able and the young. Nopro- vifion, for the mofl part, ont of the fine to pi^event the pretended evil, by fuftaining the freed man't^en /A in want. That the motive affigned is every where mere pretence, who can doubt, when it is confidered^ that the law might have laid the charge of fupport- ing the freed man on the former mafter, notwith- ftanding the enfr anchifement ; and moft juftly too, if the negro was fick or infirm at the time. Befides what law is there that can prevent the' tuming a helplefs negro out to ftarve, without a ma'- numiffion. I can Ihew, even from the laws of fome of the iflands, that it i& ar commOii pradice ; and thaf, from the wretched want of police, and the general ttfjeftion of fet-vile evidence, it cannot be efFeQ:uaIly Ik'evented. The mafter, if queftioned> alleges that the poor fickly vagrant is a defertier j and the lattei", who alone knows the reverfe, cannot be heard to eontradid him. The author of the Thoughts has gone beyoli^ his fellow-labourers, and even furpafled himfelf, in devifing a better excufe for thefe moft unjuft' atid tyrannical laws. He has veritured to fuggeft, that they are founded on a' moral principle, ti> diftoura^i impure r( .89 ) impure conm6lions between the white colonijis, an4 the black women !! I am fure that no man, who has ever been I'n the Weft Indies, can have read this with a grave face j unlefs his rifible emo- tions were reft rained, as I confefs mine were, by the ferious feelings which fuch a derifion of moral fentiment ought to excite. Certainly, if the Aflemblies had legiflated on fuch a principle, thefe laws would have been felf denying ordinances, and felf-chaftifing ordinances too, by a great many of thofe who paffed them. If any reader doubts it, I will refer only, to Weft Indian authority, that of Mr. Bryan Edwards, in hit fccond volume. . I( would be infinitely more fpecious to fay, though I do not mean to allege it, that the defign was to fecure a preference by the female flaves of illicit connections with white men, to lawful wedlock with men of ;heir own clafs; fmce the Utter are much the leaft likely to be able to pay the advanced price of freedom, either for the en- flaved wife, or her children. That thefe lawg muft in eflfedt operate moft cruelly againft free blacks or mulattoes who marry female flaves, and thereby difcourage fuch connexions, there can be no doubt. 'I could give feme affefting proofs of it, in the Extremes of patient induftry and felf-denial, which tKey have been known to pra^ife in order to redeem r\\wi thd* C 190 ) their families from flavery, before thefe barbarous and moft iniquitous laws exifled. But what a contempt for the underftandings of his readers, muft that author entertain, when he hazards fuch a defence ? If the Aflemblies had really afted on fuch moral views, why are the manumif- fions of black men or black children, equally re- ftrained with thofe of other coloured people ? Does he wijh us ia believe^ that negroes are the natural offspring of white perfons ? Such is the mockery, fuch the extravagant pretences, with which thefe fhameful laws, a new fpecies in the hiftory of human oppredions, are defended. I muft abftain from noticing feveral other equally impotent attempts to elude the force of the argu- ment in our Report, drawn from the condufl of the Aflemblies. To delay my publication longer, would be to lofe its more immediate objed. Yet juftice to you, my dear Wilberforce, requires that> before I conclude, I fhould expofe one more of the bold fidlions, in the Jamaica Report, on the ftrength of which your moral character is boldly and rudely alTailed. In your letter to your conflituents of Yorkfhire, publifhed in 1807, you mentioned as an inftance of what you indulgently regarded as unintentional mifreprefentation on the fide of the colonies, the following iiads. In ( 191 ) In 1788, the Jamaica agent of that day, and fom'e other gentlemen conneded with the colony, ftated in their evidence before the Committee of the Privy Council for the affairs of Trade and Plantations, in the courfe of its enquiries relative to the flave trade, that the common allowance of herrings, " for the food of the flaves in that ifland, was from twenty to twenty- five barrels for every hundred negroes, all ages included." But on a reference to the accounts of Weft: Indian imports from official returns in an Appendix to the Report of that Committee, it was found that the average quantity of herrmgs imported into Jamaica during the five preceding years, viz. from 1783 to 1787 both inclufive, was only 21,089 barrels per annum ; which reckoning the field flaves alone, as then eftimated in point of numbers, amounted to lefs than half the quantity that the alleged allowances required for their confumption* Your principles of calculation were certainly not too unfavorable to the ftatement which you thus refuted; for you fuppofed the confumers of herrings and all other falted fifli (which were averaged with them in both the fl:atements) to be the field flaves alone ; and therefore deduced from the eftimated number of 230,000 flaves in the ifland, one-eighth part as not being of that defcription, which even this Report admits not to have been too large a pro- portion. Perhaps you was not aware that not only flaves ( 192 ) flaves of all defcriptions, but t!ie free people of colour, and the white colonifts, efpecially thofe of the lower clafs, are great confumers of herrings and fait fifh. Dried cod efpecially forms a very frequent difli at mod Weft India tables. The Affembly takes care of courfe not to fet you right in this mif- take, but inveighs againft you with the utmofl afperity for an error which it imputes to you on the other fide. I hope the reader will turn to the Report, if he has it, and obferve the rancour which fpends itfell elaborately on this fubjed, from the 25th to the 37th page. You are " a calumnious zealoty who think all means, however nefarious, allowable, to accompHJh your objed. Tou are dejiiiute of common candour and bonejiy, Tou maJiciouJly and wantonly impute to other gentlemen the perverting fa6ls to cover deliberate faJfe* hood,' while you alone are yourfdf guilty of that crime'* What a ftrange miftake, my dear Wilberforce, has the world been in as to your charader, till thefe worthy gendemen favoured us with your true portrait!!! That you imputed to the Jamaica agent and wit- nefles, the perverfion of fadls to cover " deliberate falfehood,'* is juft as true as almofl: every other propofition in this Report. We need not here aflc the impartial to rcafon, but only to read. Inftead 4 of of infuking or triumphing over the opponents who^ ilatemerits^ou fo decifively refuted, you laboured with your ufuai benignity, to refolve their eftlmate into miftake ; nay,j into a miflake, the foiirce of which was creditable to their own conduft. You had juftly remarked on the advantage which the Weft Indian Proprietors had in being able to feied from their own body, planters the moft affluent and humane, and whofe treatment of their flaves confequently was hberal far beyond the prdinary ftandard ; and calliug them as witnefles to ftat? the details of their own management 5 thereby- taking a credit to the general fyftem to which it was not fairly entitled. That fuch was the policy by which you had been long and fatally oppofed, is certainly true ; and inftances of the fame.pradice are to be found in the prefent Repqjrt. You went ilill further j fuggefting more direftly a complimentary excufe for the gentlemen who had generalized their own particular condud. You fup- pofed it to proceed from the natural repugnance which they felt to put themfelves above others in point of liberality, as well as from their real and natural ignorance of the conduft of other planters irr the private management of their cftates. ..a.. . Jt was with fuch a prelude, and as an illuftratroribr fuIi .remarks, that you introduced tfle 1^ ' ( '94 ) queftion. I refer to the publication itfelf, p. 195 to 197 i for I am fure it will be difficult to believe, that any fet of men whatever, much more a grave legiflative body, could poffibly reprefent fuch a mode of treating your adverfaries, as " charging ihem with complicated infamy,** and as a " -wanton and malicious imputation upon them of perverting fa6ls to cover deliberate falfehood" If the reader, after confulting the text, (hould feel indignation at the commentators, mixing with his furprife, I beg him to fupprefs his emotions for a while, and attend to the reft of the charge, and to the means by which it is fupported. Your wilful error was the taking the fupply of fifli that came from Great Britain, as the whole that was imported into Jamaica from 1783 to 1787; whereas, fay the Reporters, " // is well known that the principal fupply offfh in the years referred to, came from the United States, and the Britifh North American provinces** It is added, that " if you had taken due care to obtain information, you would have found that in the year preceding the publication of your Letter, feven times the quanhty you ftate had been imported into Jamaica ; and then an account is fet forth, {hewing the quantities of fifh imported 'va. 1806, which are reduced into barrels, making 147^424. They are from Great Britain, the United 8 /. States, ( 95 ) States, and the Britifh Plantations, *' the three difiini fources^' as we are told, ^^which had alwaysfurnijhed the fupply-, except during the revolutionary war** meaning I prefume, the war with America. No reader, I dare fay, who is not familiarly ac- quainted with Weft India commerce, and the laws by which it is governed, has read thefe paflages of the Report, with any doubt of their fairnefs and truth. Indeed it is fo difficult to fuppofe, that any body of men, at the moment, and for the purpofe, of imputing wilful and deliberate falfehood to a re- fpefled public charader, would pradife the very crime they impute, and this too, by mifreprefenting public fads in a way which even our ftatute books can be invoked to contradid, that the conduct rauft be clearly demonftrated, in order to be believed. When I faid to you, on firft reading the Report, that the propofitions I have here extrafted could not be true ; for that herrings, or other falted fifh, could not have been lawfully imported from the United States into the Britifh Weft Indies at the period referred to, you feared that I muft be mif- taken, and that your former ftatement had been lefs correct than you fuppofed it to be when made. You had candour for the Aflembly ; though, even oil tliat fuppofition, it had fhewn none towards your- fslf. A reference to the acls of parliament was ncceffary to convince you of the truth. ' i-ilkif^ N 3 ' The ( '96 ) The fadisj that after theindependence of America, tthe imports into our Weft Indian iflands from that country, evn in Britifh Shipping, were reftricled, firfl by Orders in Council, and afterwards by the ftatute 28 Geo. III. cap. 6. to certain enumerated articles, among which neither herrings nor any other fpecies of fiJli were included. Recollefting however, that Jamaica had free ports, I turned to the ad by which they are efta- blifhed j viz. 27 Geo. III. cap. 27. and found tha.t there alfo, the enumeration wholly excluded fifli. This afl: took effeft in September 1787, and confer quently fo much of the ftatement as aflerts, "that the United States have been always one of the fource f fupply, except during the revolutionary war," is manifeftly falfe. But there had been a previous free port ad, which continued in force till repealed by the exifling ad in 1787 j and under that, all goods and com- modities were admiflibie which were the growth or produce of any plantation or colony in America, not under the King's dominion. A queflion therefore remained whether herrings from the United States might not have been pradically held to be within, jthat defcription ? If fo, it mufl: have been clearly ^ wrong conflrudion; for theSta^es of North America, when they became independent and foreign, ceafed at ( '9y ) fhe fame moment to be '^ cohnies or plantations ** within the legil import of the terms, or within tHi fpirit and intention of the law. I proceeded never^ thelefs tcf fearch whether fuch a wrong conftrudion had prevailed, and found fatisfaftory evidence of the reverfe. * That * In the Privy Council Report, before referred to, there is k table of the imports from foreign plantations into the Weft Indies under the free port afts, from 1783 to 1788. It con* tains a fmall quantity of fifh, dried and pickled cod, imported into Jamaica in the yean 1784 and 1785 ; viz. only 948 quintals in the former, and 150 quintals in the latter, and none at all in the following years ; nor any ^ticle whatever of that kind into the other free ports at Dominica and Grenada. The InfpeAor General took care to inform us, in a note, that the articles of provifions were imported prior to the commencement of the laft free port act, which took effeft in September 1787, and were from the MiJftJJi^ ; thereby intimating that they were the produce not of the United States, but of a foreign colony. If foreign colonies than Ihould be added to the three ftnirces defcribed, or could be allowed to be a proper defignation of the United States, ftill the petty importation of a few quintals in two years, could obvioufly not favcj i^l any degree, the credit of the AfFembly's ftatement. I find another official table alfo, in the fame repofitory, of exports from the free ports during the fame period % by whic& It appears that Jamaica exported in 1784, 272 quintals, and 1383 barrels of fifli wtt and dry ; and a fmaller quantity in the Ather years, in queftion ; fo that if both thofe acc6fill& h'iS been taken into your computation, the quantity retailied /W" <:oqfumption would have been IcfTened. N3 On ( '98 ) That herrings nnd other fifh might lawfully be brought from the Britifii North American Colonies, there is no doubt ; but that they were in fat fo brought during the period in queflion, in quantities materially to impeach your computation, is as untrue as the former aflfertion. I can find no account of fuch imports prior to 1788 J but Sir William Young propofes the trade of that year, and with good reafon, as a criterion of the fupply which thofe colonies could furnifh to our Weft India iflands in time of peace ; and by an official return to the Houfe of Commons, the fupply to all our iflands colledively in 1788, was only 22,196 quintals of dry, and 803 barrels of pickled fifh *. - '' " ' On turning to Sir William Young's common-place book, I found more confirmation still that the praftice had agreed with the law. He aftually complains, that in confequence of the re- ftriftions on the trade with the. United States from 17^14 to 1793, 15,000 neg^oos were faid to have perifhed in Jamaica from famine. Upon thefe, and other grounds, to be prefently noticed, it is clear that the pradice did not vary from the law, and that Jamaica had no importation whatever of herrings pr ther falted fifh from the United States, at the time when ^jhe Affembly fo harflily reprovej you for not having known jmprta,tion from that country to. be a principal fource of fuPFjV ' \ Common-place Book, p. 120. ^ ^- Both ( 199 ) Both the propofitions then by which the Affem- bly would at once uphold the ftatement of its agent and friends in 1788, and convid you of wilful falfehood in your refutation of it, are deflitute of truth. But the attempt to countenance thofe affertions by the account fet forth in the Report, deferves ftill ftronger cenfure. Falfehood is there upheld by fo much artful contrivance, and collateral impofition, as to demonftrate that it was in the ftrongeft degree, to ufe the Aflembly's own words, *' wilful and deliberate,*'' Moft of my readers muft be aware, that foon after the commencement of the war with France in 1793, the Governors in the Weft Indies, with the advice of their Councils, opened the ports of our iHands for the introduction of provifions and other neccflaries from the United States of North America, contrary to the fubfifting laws of naviga- tion and trade. The urgent demands of the mili- tary and naval fervice in that part of the world, confeqaent on our powerful expediiions againft the French iflands, feconded the complaints of the planters as to the preflure of the then exifting reftrictions in time of war; and relaxations of the law took place, not only by the admilTioii of American and other Fqreigri {hips, but^ by Mr^_ N 4 the ( 20O ) the importation, as well in them, as Britifh veflels, of articles which could rot lawfully be import64 even in the latter, from the United States. This aflumption of authority being thought }ufli? fiable under the circumftances of the cafe, was fantioned retrofpeftively by the Crown ; and Bills of indemnity were pafled from time to time to proted the Governors from the penaUies they had incurred by fuch violations of the law. In this way, began in Jamaica, as well as our other iflands, the importation of herrings and other ^fli from the United States. It was not however until towards the end of 1793, that the relaxation extended in any inflance beyond the introdudiouof flour, grain, and lumber, articles enumtrated by the a8 Geo. III. cap. 6. in Foreign, inilead of Britifh bottoms J and even in the following year, the ad- miffion of filh and other faked provifions was but partially and fparingly allowed. An account of all provifions and lumber imported into the Britifti Welt Indies from the United States, or from our North American colonies, from 1793 to 1.803, ^^^^ inclufive, made out from official re? turns, is printed in the Appendix to the Journals of the Houfe of Commons for 1806, p. 713 to 715 j| and ( 20I ) and will be found fully illuftrative of the fal:s I have ftated. In 1793 the dried fifti from the United States imported into all our iflands collec* lively, was no more than 5,025 quintals, and the herrings, or other pickled fi(h amounted only to 426 barrels j and in 1794 the latter had only ad- vanced to 4,132 barrels, the former to 23,135 quintals, equal by the AlTembly's data to 11,544 barrels, for all the Britifli Weft Indies ; yet the Report would lead us to believe, that an im- portation of 39,144 barrels, is a fair fpecimen of the importations into Jamaica alone from the United States at that period, as well as in many preceding years in which there was no fuch im^- portation at ail. Afterwards, thefe imports progfeflively rofe to a very high pitch ; to the great prejudice of the export trade of this country, as well ,as of our North American colonies. But the neceflities of the war, and other circumftances, prevented a flop being put to fufpenfions of our navigation laws by the local authorities, till at length it was thought beft to legalize them profpedively by an a^ of Parliament of 46th of His Majefty, chap. 53, re- ferring them however to regulations to be made by Orders in Council. By orders made under that act, the intportation of filh from the United States ,. iflto ( 202 ) Jnto our Weft Indian iflands for a limited period wai for the firfl time legally allowed *. ,, The Aflembly, in order to fupport its own unfounded ftatements, and maintain its harfh im- peachments of your integrity and truth, reforts to this honeft expedient. It picks out from its Journals an annual return of imports of fifli from the United States, the largeft, no doubt, that thefe temporary difpenfations with our ordinary trade laws have pro- duced ; and then exhibits it in proof that fuch im- ports muft at the time you referred to, viz. from 1783 to 1787, have conftituted a principal fource of fupply. In refpeft of a period ending fix years before the trade exifted, you ought to have taken it into your account ! Nay it was a want of " common candour, and common honejiy^* not to do fo ! ! 1 It isfcarcely worth ^hile, after expofing this part of the impofture, to attempt its fuller developement. Yet there is fomething fo curious in the feleftion of the particular year 1806, and fomething fo prepof- terous in the reafon given, viz. that it was " the year before the publication cf your audacious calumny" that I cannot refrain from fome remarks on it. i# If confirmation of thefe ftatements, and further details are gifted for* \ refer tiiC reader to that valuable work, Mr. Reeves'a ?^^.?fti^P^S * P^ 3- cap- ^^ mA They ( 203 ) They have no accounts, they tell us, " of the fifli imported in the years to which you referred." Do they go then as near to that period as they can, or to a time of peace, as that was, or to a period when their trade laws were the fame ; or do they furnifh us with the returns for an equal term of years, that we may compare one average with another ? By no means ; there is it feems fome occult connection between the printing your pamphlet in London, and the importing herrings in Jamaica, that makes the year immediately preceding the one, the fiitefl: and fmgle ftandard for the other ! If I miftake not, this " audacious calumny ** of yours was not originally framed for your Yorklhire conftituents, but was many years before publicly pro- pagated in Parliament ; and never controverted till now. The Aflembly however for at leaft nine years leaves it unanferwcd ; and then thinks the very befl manifeftation of its falfehood, is to (hew what the trade was, at a period twenty years after that to which you referred. ^ Some reafon certainly there was for not taking an average, and for the choice of that particular year. It could not be the childifh one that is at figned ; and we are, therefore, naturally led to con- jecture another. To affift the guefles of the reader^; I would remark that the great annual imports of t^iil fifli ( 204 ) fifli into our Weft India iflands are always about the dofe of the year. The fhips from Europe chiefly arrive at that feafoft- ; and the diftribution of fifti to the negroes is more copious at Chriftmas than any other time. Now it muft naturally fome- times happen, efpecially from the delays of convoys in war time, that the (hips expected about the clofe of one year, do not arrive till the commencement of the next ; if therefore at the next feafon they fhould arrive in due time, the imports for the fupply of two years wiH be in great meafure dated in one. Other circumftances may contribute to make a fingle year exhibit a yaft excefs beyond the true average ; more efpecially the demand for re-expor- tation ; which, from the circumftances of the late war, the unfettled ftate of the Spanifli colonies, the intercourfe, licit or clandeftine, with Hay ti, and other caufes, muft have fluduated greatly at Jamaica. The Affembly takes credit for the whole import of the chofen year, without allowing a barrel for re-expor- tation. If I remember right indeed, articles imported under the Orders in Council could not be re- exported J but the fifh brought from Great Britain, and from our American colonies clearly could ; and I have (hewn that even at a part of the period referred to, when the trade to the Spanifh colonies was comparatively very fmall, Jamaica re-exported no inconfiderable quantity of falted fifh, I pretend ( *o5 ) I pretend not however to aflign the true caufes of the extraordinary phenomena in this feleded account ; but even on the flatements of the Af- fembly, it would prove far too much. That there is fome great fallacy in it, taken as evidence of thealual ordinary confumption, it is impoffible to doubt ; and the general charader now brought home to this report, entitles us ftrongly to fufped fome intentional deception. At all events, fuch a document, however fair in itfelf, cannot ferve in the Icafl degree to excufc the mifreprefentations of the AfTembly as to thefafbs in queftion, or to impeach the ftatenient it arraigns; much lefs to juftify its afperfions and abufe. But our caufe, my dear Wilberforce, will gain flrength from thefe impotent attacks on its leader. Reafoning men who have had prepofleffions againfl the neceffity of the RegifterBill, are now coming over to our fide, in confequence of their obferving by whom, in what manner, and with what unprece- dented exertions, we are oppofed. They will reafon in the fame way, from the vifible antipathy to a cha- rader fo unlikely from his manners to infpire it, and to whom the AfTemblies would vote flatues rather than libels, if they had really opened their eyes to the evils and guilt of the Have trade. I am, &c. &c. !?lI3!aV| i ( ao7 ) APPENDIX, No. I. The Table of Population Returns taken from the Jamaica Report. 1800 - Slaves. Negroeg imported. Negroes expored. 30o>939 20,436 5 I80I - - 307>o94 "^309 270 . . 2 - - 307. '99' 8,131 2.554 3 - - 308,668 7,846 2,036 . . 4 - - 308,542 5.979 1,811 -5 - - 308,775 5,006 398 . . 6 - - 312,341 8,487 166 . . 7 - - 319.351 16,263 336 n - - - 323.827 . (' 323.714" Ti3>^_83 ^6,830" ]_ 3 1 9,9 1 2 3.3<^4 309 f. 86,821 7.885 V i> i^'-- -. . 13 - - 317.424 . 14 - - 3 '5.385 15 - - (313.8^4 i> ( *o8 ) APPENDIX, No.n. IT may be ufeful with readers, ftrangcrs to cole**' jiial practices in the prefent controverfy, to give them - fpecimen of the manner in which evidence is taken by the AiTemblieSj for the information of the Britifh Parliament and people. I therefore lay before them the following correfpondence between the Aflembly of the Bahamas, and that truly refpetable gentleman Mr^ Wylly, his Majefty'8 Attorney Geperal for that colony. *' The Committee of the Houfe of Aflembly, oti the pieafures at prefent before Parliament pn the fubjeft of ft general regiftry of flaves in the colonies, have received a draft of the anfwers which Mr. Wylly has propofed tp give to the queftions generally put to perfons examined by that Committee. The Committee regret to fay that they cannot receive thofe anfwers. In the firft place, becaufe they conceive many of them imperfeft, and not anfwering feveral of the queftions fully ; and fecondly^ becaufe Mr. Wylly has introduced into thefe anfwers > variety of matter entirely unconnected with the enquiry on which the Committee are employed ; and which there^ fore could not be admitted into their report, without leading extenfively into new fubjefls and difcufTions, for which tliey have neith-er time or authority. The Com- mittee, ( 309 ) mittce, therefore, truft Mr. Wylly can have no ohjelion to re-confider his anfwers ; the Committee having agreed to meet for the purpofe of feeing Mr. Wylly on that fub- jeft. Of the time and place Mr. Wylly fliall have due notice in the ufual way. Nassau, 13th December 18 15. Anfwer of Mr. Wylly to the above. The Attorney General has re-confidered the anfwers which he gave in fome days ago, to the interrogatories exhibited to him by a Committee of the Houfe of Aflem- bly, appointed to enquire into the authenticity, nature, and probable efFeft of three documents now before the Houfe upon the fubjeft of certain proceedings pending in Parliament, relative to the fituation of free perfons of colour and flaves in the Britifli colonies in the Weft Indies. The Attorney General is fatisfied, that every part of the matters contained in his anfwers comes completely within the fcope of the enquiries now pending in Parlia- ment and in the Houfe of Aflembly, upon the aforefaid fubjefts J and he perceives that he has fully anfwered every (even the moft minute) queftion contained in the interrogatories ; in doing which, he felt it to be his duty to give information, not only to the Houfe of Aflembly, but to Parliament, (before which he prefumes his anfwers will be laid.) O The ( 2IO ) The Attorney General alfo knows that witnefles (in all courts, and in all cafes) are bound not only to fpeak the truth, but the whole truth, according to the beft of their knowledge ; and he therefore begs leave to decline making any further alteration in the ftate of the evidence which he was called upon by the Committee to give. (Signed) Wm. Wyllt. NalTau, 8th December 1815. It may be proper to explain the meaning of the words ** any further alteration.'' Mr. Wylly had previoufly made fome alterations, to obviate, as far as his honorable mind would permit, the objeftions of the Committee ; and it was the fecond draft of his anfwers to which the preceding correfpondence relates. Mr. Wylly's teftimony, however, as to the non-exift- ence of flave trade, and the fuperiority of the treat- ment of flaves in the Bahamas, was, from his high cha- rafter, too important to be difpenfed with. He received a fummons, therefore, to attend the Committee ; and was examined viva voce, and as much of his evidence taken down, as the Committee, or the Honourable Houfe, thought it would be expedient to lay before the Britifli Parliament and public. See it, as printed in the Bahama Report by the Agent of the Colony. Inave'thebeft authority for aflerting that he did not withhold in his viva voce anfwers, that which the Com- mittee had rejefted when in writing ; or ftate it with lefs ftrength of fadt and obfervation *, but his evidence in the Report ( 211 ) Report is, by deficiency at leaft, very difFerent from what it was propofed to be in his amended draught laid before the Committee j as the following extracfts from the latter may fuffice to fhew : Extrads from the Draft referred to. <* The defefts of the confolidated flave aft (which is only a tranfcript from the Jamaica law, and for which the examinant, who introduced it here, is alone blameable) call aloud for amendment. The proprietor of every plan- tation ought to be obliged to make annual returns into fome public office at Naflau, {hewing the number of flaves on each plantation, the births, deaths, and removals j the quantity of corn or other provifions and cloathing iflued in the courfe of the year j with the number and extent of the punifhments inflicted ; and for what ofFences." ** They (free perfons of colour) are protected in their perfons and property by the fame laws which afford pro- te2 ) removed, in a lineal defcent_, from a black anceftor, are to be deemed white ; ^nd are to have and enjoy all the pri- vileges and immunities of His Majefty's white fubjefts of thefe iflands if free and brought up in the chriftian re- ligion ; but that humane and wife law was fufpended for fifty years (a very effeftual repeal, as to the then exifting gencrucion) by an a6l: paffed in the year 1802 ; which laft mentioned moft extraordinary aft has hitlierto efcaped the obfervation, not only of His Majefty*s Minifters, but of tlie African Inftitution." It is impoffible to blame the prudence of the Honorable Houfe in fuppreffing paffages like thefe. The Aflembly had certainly a creditable cafe in refpel of flave trade, and comparative humanity to flaves ; as I have admitted in the body of this work, and as the African Inftitution ad- mitted long ago. Seep.i73,&c. Thanks to their foil, they do not raife fugar ; and do not confequently drive their flaves i or pradlife many collateral oppreflions incident to thai fyftem of agriculture; their negroes therefore increafe, and are comparatively happy. I freely admit all that Mr. Wylly has faid on thofe fubjets j and would admit it on his authority if we had not heard of it before. Having fuch a cafe, it would have been a great pity to fpoi! it, by {hewing that where temptation does occur, yiz in maintaining the immunities of a white face againft a black or yellow one, and againft law and humanity too, when a collifion anfes between them, the Bahama legifla- ^ tors are not more liberal or juft than their brethren of Barbadoes ( ai3 ) Barbadoes or Jamaica ; the only other colonies, to my knowledge and recolleftion, in which the evidence of free coloured perfons has ever been rejected by law. Though Jamaica has at laft altered her law in this refpea, I think it right to point out the ht, in proof that (he is not entitled to take credit, as flie does, for dif- tinguiflied liberality in that improvement. In St. Chriftopher, Nevis, and the other iflands, whofe laws I am acquainted with, the evidence of this clafs of perfons was always received, in all cafes civil or criminal. In the Bahamas it was once univerfally rejefted, but afterwards admitted in civil cafes, on account of the great inconvenience ivhich the white colonijis found, in not being able to prove their accounts by their mulatto or mu/lee clerks and book-keepers. They are now very good witnefles to eftablifh a white man's rights; but not to prove his crimes. After fuch a fpecimen as I have here given of the mode of taking evidence by our opponents abroad, added to my comments on the examinations already taken in Jamaica, I hope the Aflemblies will not trouble us with any more matter of that kind. The Committee of Jamaica, it appears, was once in the mind to wrap the houfe up in its own dignity, and difdain to enter into controverfy to maintain the truth of its afTertions. Perhaps this may now be thought the beft courfe : but if not, I proteft before-hand againfl further parol evidence taken by parties to the caufe. I doubt not they .xan contrive again to fend us evidence, which, a30h^.a ^^^'^^^' ( I4 ) however true, will produce all the effeft of falfehood, to put new glofles on fafts that cannot be denied, and above all to fend us many nenv opinions as to the non-importation of Jlaves : but I truft that the readers of this pamphlet will not again be difpofed to receive a Jamaica Report on the Regifter Bill with much confidence in its authority. ' If it be afked, how then is the Bill to be efFeftually oppofed, if unneceflary ? I anfwer, not by attempting to put it upon an iflue, which its promoters did not tender ; nor by attempting to prove a propofition of which the only fatisfactory evidence has been withheld by them- - felves ; but by anfwering, if they can, the arguments for the meafure, which arife from premifes too clear for dif- pute ; arguments on the force of which we are ftill willing to rely. *^s^^^ 08 2 6 printed by A. Strahan, Printers-Street, London. THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 1AY 5 1944 WAY3efG84 RECEIV W66 ilft We I9II8 INIISILIBRARY LO.^iS OCT 2 5 196B TWO WEEKS FROM DATE OF RECEIPT RC'D LD-UTC 'ormL-9 ^ . ,4 "^iAN'^ )yo9 REC'D LD-URL NOW isMtt ED 10 f?fC'0 ?' mi m "'' 0001,7472