lator is to ascertain whether a slave can be raised from the lowest grade to a more elevated rank in society, and yet remain a slave, productive as property and subservient to the will of his master; whether a partial infusion of the best principles, extracted from a society of the highest order and refinement into a system radically vicious and bad, yet hitherto simple in its deformity, will, by the admixture, neutralize and improve the latter, or the whole explode by repulsion." To this remonstrance they subjoin a long series of questions as to the precise meaning of various provisions of the Order in Council; in reply to which Lord Bathurst afterwards furnishes explanations, which, in most respects, are satisfactory. They ask whether the clause, prohibiting compulsory labour on the Sunday, forbids an exertion of the authority of the master to oblige lazy and indolent Negroes to work their grounds on Sunday, as has been the practice hitherto. Lord Bathurst's reply is to this effect: "The Order in Council distinctly prohibits the use of compulsion to induce a slave to work even on his own ground on a Sunday. The master is entitled to the labour of the slave for six days in the week, but he is not entitled to more, and out of the profits of the six days' labour the slave must be supported. The seventh must belong to the slave entirely for his own profit and advantage. I can perceive no difference in principle between the practice of purchasing food for Negroes, who are exclusively employed for six days in the service of their masters for their support during the whole week, and of appropriating an adequate portion of time, during the six days, for the cultivation of their grounds.. It is therefore evident, that in cases where the master adopts the system of provision grounds (which is most frequently the case in Trinidad), he can have no possible claim for the services of his slave on the Sunday, whether those services be for the execution of work exclusively to be performed for himself, or for the cultivation of provision grounds, by the produce of which he is to be relieved from the support of his slaves. Nor can he be considered as entitled to compensation for that day, or part of a day, which he may permit his slaves to appropriate during the six working days, for he makes this arrangement to supersede the necessity of purchasing provisions for his slaves." It is to be regretted that the Order is perfectly silent on the important point of the quantum of time to be allowed to the slave in lieu of Sunday, over and above the time that had been previously allowed him in addition to it. The 21st clause enacts, that on the prosecution of an owner for inflicting an illegal punishment on a slave, if the slave (not himself being a competent witness) shall be produced in court with the traces of recent laceration visible, and shall make a probable and consistent statement of all the circumstances, then the owner shall be bound to prove either that the punishment was not inflicted by him, or that it was a lawful punishment; and failing to do so shall be adjudged guilty. To this clause the planters object, that a slave might, from malicious motives, procure some fellow-slave to flog him, so as to create laceration, and then exhibit his sores in court as evidence against his master. But Lord Bathurst justly thinks that there is no probability of any such fraud being attempted. It is objected to the clause which prohibits the flogging of female slaves, that they are thus placed in asuperior state to persons of free condition. Lord Bathurst observes, that the objection does not prove the impropriety of the clause, but rather demonstrates the necessity of altering the law which sanctions such a mode of punishing free females. He intimates at the same time, that a law is meditated for improving the condition of the free People of Colour. It is asked, whether the permission given to the slaves to hold land does not virtually revoke the existing law of Trinidad, prohibiting slaves from cultivating the staple commodities of the island. Lord Bathurst replies, that in granting to slaves the power of acquiring land, the order does not of course exempt them from any existing restrictions as to the mode in which the land may be cultivated by persons of their class and condition *. * What a hard measure is dealt out to the poor slave! His want of in. dustry is assigned as a reason for withholding freedom from him; but, by positive regulations, restraining the application of his industry, all motive to its exertion is as much as possible taken away. He is not allowed to grow, or even to possess, a single article of exportable produce. Lord Bathurst appears to have been struck with the injustice of this arrangement in the case of Demerara. Is it less unjust in the case of Trinidad ? The Colonial Committee inquire, whether in the case of an old infirm slave having acquired property to purchase either his own freedom, or that of his son who might be in the vigour of life, such a slave might elect to remain in slavery himself, continuing a burden to his owner, and to free his son, who forms a valuable part of the owner's property: Lord Bathurst well replies, "This is a just right which the slave clearly possesses under the order. The most powerful inducement to a life of labour and self-denial is destroyed, if the slave is not permitted to employ, as may please him best, whatever property he may acquire by his exertions. An old man might purchase his freedom at a cheap rate; but if he prefers labouring longer to purchase that of his son, such an instance of parental regard and self-denial would not make the father less deserving of support. Besides, if the father might not purchase the freedom of his own son, there is nothing which could prevent his making over to the son the means of purchasing it for himself. The prohibition, therefore, would not only be harsh but inoperative. Nor is the master really injured; for, if the son be strong and valuable, the owner will receive his proportionable price. If, on the other hand, the father is old and infirm, is it because he has spent his youth and strength in habits of industry, and in his master's service, that he is unworthy of support?" Lord Bathurst adds his opinion, that, where either infants or old persons are redeemed for a valuable consideration paid to the owner, no bond for maintenance ought to be required. It is true that the slave so redeemed may become a public burden. Where a slave, however, is manumitted for a valuable consideration, the security is considerable. "Such manumissions can only take place with the concurrence of the slave himself, with his own money, or with the money of some one who has an interest in his welfare. It is not to be supposed that the consent would be given, or the money paid, if there were a reasonable prospect that the manumission would injure the party manumitted, by reducing him from a state of sufficiency to poverty and distress. A slave, who can raise or possesses the means of purchasing his own freedom, will seldom belong to that class of persons who sink into pauperism. On this, and every system of law, frauds may be attempted; but the Protector of slaves will be bound to counteract such fraudulent practices *." The Order in Council, say the planters, has made slaves competent witnesses on producing a certificate from their religious teacher. It is asked whether the want of such a certificate will render a slave incompetent, who might according to the pre-existing law have been received as a witness. Lord Bathurst's' reply is important. "The Order," he says, "furnishes a distinct' answer to this question, by declaring that nothing therein contained shall extend to take away or diminish any power or authority which any court of criminal jurisdiction now hath to admit, in any case, the evidence of persons being in a state of slavery." At the same time, prior to this satisfactory explanation of his lordship, we should have been apt to form a different conclusion. If the whole community of slaves in Trinidad already enjoyed the privilege, in point of law, of giving evidence in courts of justice, we should have concluded that a clause, specially entitling those who obtain a certificate of competency to this privilege, was intended to operate to the exclusion of all others. The set of papers B. contains a report of the operation of the Order in Council in Trinidad, during the first half year of its existence-namely, from June to December 1824. "It is alleged," says the Governor, in transmitting this report, "that many planters do not punish their slaves, even when they merit chastisement, from the dislike, and often from the inability, to keep the Record Book. But though this may have occurred, it is, I believe, equally true that the fear of their offence being recorded has also served to restrain the slaves. Cases of insolence and insubordination frequently occur among the female slaves, for which confinement would • His Lordship here furnishes a powerful reply to all those miserable slanders poured forth by the Rev. Mr. Bridges, and others of his class, against manumission, as converting the now happy slave into a miserable and helpless pauper. be a sufficient punishment, if it were persisted in, but the loss of the people's labour prevents all the benefit that might be felt from such a substitution. More serious offences were intended to be met by labour on the tread-wheel under the orders of a magistrate, but the distance of the majority of estates from Port of Spain prevents recourse being had to it." The report of the Procurador Syndic, Mr. Henry Gloster, is very full. It contains a variety of information. I. Criminal prosecutions at the instance of the AttorneyGeneral, from 24th of June to 24th of December 1824. These are eleven in number. (B. pp. 39-67.) 1. The King against Robert Gaston, the manager of La Puerta estate, for flogging a slave named Sebastian Mati, because he said he was sick, and afterwards beating him with a stick for the same cause, and breaking his arm. This was a case of much doubt, and the accused was therefore properly acquitted. 2. The King against Francis, a slave, for assaulting and wounding a free Spaniard. The prisoner being found guilty was sentenced to hard labour in the tread-mill for four months, then to be punished with forty stripes in presence of the slaves of the neighbouring estates, and then delivered to his master. 3. The King against Plato Anguilla, a slave, for assaulting and wounding Richard Pearce, a slave. Not guilty-discharged. 4. The King against Jaques Grand Guile, a slave, for assault and murder of a free man, Telemaque. Not guilty of the murder, but guilty of the assault. The Court, however, deemed the confinement already sustained sufficient punishment, and discharged him. 5. The King against Jean Paul Ongell, a slave, for an assault on the overseer and driver of the estate to which he belonged. He was found guilty, and sentenced to seventy stripes in the presence of the slaves of the neighbouring estates. 6. The King against Robert Ramsay, a slave, for the murder of another slave. There was a second count for an assault. He was acquitted of the murder, but found guilty |