But how does the new Council of Berbice act? The most important of all the new measures they carry at once into effect; that is to say, they allow no opportunity for parties in England to carry remonstrance or explanation to the foot of the throne.
Again, let us ask, is this a precedent? What is the meaning of the term? does it not warrant the inference, in this case, that some assembly, composed of parties interested, have given their concurrence? But how marked is the difference between a council composed of persons possessing little or no property in slaves, and a court where several of the members hold large plantations, and are deeply interested in the permanent prosperity of their colony.
The possession of this large stake by the members, and the circumstance of having delegated interests to represent, peculiarly conduce to safe and practicable legislation. Such circumstances present a security against precipitancy,—prompt to a careful and minute consideration of all local peculiarities,—and procure for every public measure a full and patient examination of all its relations, both direct and contingent, before it is permitted to be put in execution.
And further, in respect to any one of these West India cases, has there elapsed a time sufficient to enable us to estimate the policy of the experiment, and still less to pronounce upon its fitness for the whole of our West Indian possessions?
Section 4.
CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.
How this colony should be referred to as a precedent it is difficult to explain. Its climate differs materially from that of the West Indies. In the latter, the evils apprehended from giving freedom to the slaves arise from the impossibility of procuring free labourers to supply their place. It is but a very short time since emigration from this country to the Cape of Good Hope was greatly encouraged; and it is ascertained, by experience, that Europeans can work without injury or inconvenience in that climate.
Thus the supply of voluntary labourers not only existing, but increasing in that colony, the inducements to perpetuate slavery must progressively expire, and slaves may consequently be freed without injury to the property of their owners, or danger to the public safety.
From this obvious difference in physical circumstances between the West India colonies and the Cape of Good Hope, there is no just analogy between the two; and though compulsory manumission may be enacted in the one, it cannot, therefore, be taken as a model for imitation to the other.
This straining after inapplicable precedent clearly indicates deficiency of argument.
No enactment containing inherently a principle of evil, even though acceded to willingly, or acquiesced in passively, by individual bodies, should ever be set up by a wise government as an example for general adoption.