Compulsory manumission

by Alexander McDonnell

The general tone of the publication will create much surprise, and in one respect it will be of service, in making known the true relations and influence of the contending parties. It has been asserted by the anti-colonial advocates, and believed by a large portion of the community, that the West Indians possessed great influence with government, by means of which their cause was powerfully strengthened.

If the well-informed portion of the public could once have entertained this belief, their error must appear manifest on a perusal of the pamphlet in question. The writer expresses himself very unceremoniously towards those of the West India body, who were members of the last parliament; and his tone might lead one to conclude that he thinks them not worth conciliation. He seems to justify his asperity, by complaining that the colonial department is improperly singled out for attack in regard to those proceedings which the colonial interests do not approve. Now he must be aware that, constitutionally speaking, responsibility peculiarly attaches to that officer of the crown from whose department particular acts emanate. If important measures affecting the colonies are carried into effect, while there is reason to believe that the Secretary of State for that department is in possession of despatches, official reports, or other information showing their inexpediency, he will be chiefly looked to for the consequences; because it is conceived to be his immediate duty to give full explanation of the details, both to his colleagues and to parliament, and not to incur responsibility for measures he could not conscientiously approve. These are rather the sentiments of the British nation than of any individual party.

It cannot, therefore, be invidious to canvass freely the acts of that particular department. It is the obvious and the regular course where grievances are felt; and all our ideas of public principle warrant a belief, that when such grievances are fairly stated, every officer of the crown to whose department they referred, so far from feeling indignant at their exposition, would be anxious to extend his protection, in order to have them promptly redressed.

Thus viewing the case, our advocate of the colonial department cannot mistake the tendency or application of any of the comments contained in this publication; and he will be aware that a fair spirit of argument alone influences an examination of his positions, and of the judgment evinced in the manner and tone with which he has maintained them.

This writer endeavours to defend government, by charging the West Indians with inconsistency. This mode of argument, so frequently resorted to in political warfare, in nine cases out of ten indicates a feeble cause. It can surely never be too late to correct a principle radically wrong.

But let us examine the charge.

It is contended, that compulsory manumission was clearly laid down in the proceedings of parliament in March, 1824; that it was heard by the West India members without opposition, which was an implied acquiescence; and that if they now turn round to oppose it, they must have been “the most ignorant, incautious, and imbecile body of men who ever were got together to represent an interest.”

It was well known to the writer of this sentence, that the West India members were unanimously opposed to compulsory manumission; and it may be added, that a charge, couched in such language as this, could not have been expected from such a quarter. It may be true, that the West India members did not appeal to the House so early or so often as the threatened injustice may have demanded. But is this difficult to account for? When West India members have come forward to state their case, have we not seen it retorted upon them in the widely-disseminated publications of the anti-colonial party, in terms of the utmost coarseness: “He is a slave-driver: what attention or confidence is due to the statement of such a character?”

The West India members are indeed in a dilemma: if they speak, they run the risk of being abused—if silent, they are to be held parties to all the acts of precipitation and folly which may take place in colonial government.

It would be unnecessary to touch upon this point, did not one remark pre-eminently suggest itself for grave consideration. Throughout this pamphlet we have the defending of parties, clashing of interests, and such terms; just as if the “Saints” and the West Indians were to fight the battle betwixt them, and whichever proved the most cunning, or the most persevering, would carry their point. And is this the language an apologist of government thinks it necessary to maintain? Can he have forgotten the grounds on which the West Indians were induced to commit their cause to the care of government? It was to stop useless or violent discussion. It proceeded from the principle, that if one party declaimed about alleged oppression of the negroes, and the other about their property, the safety of the colonies was the immediate province of ministers; that, as public servants, it was their sacred duty to uphold all the possessions of the crown; and that, in watching over their welfare, they equally protected the property of the colonists.