And why was it that the resolutions were thus implicitly relied on? Not from any opinion that declarations of separate branches of the legislature could affect the rights of individuals resting on the statute-laws of the realm, but, because the parliamentary resolution contained a principle of cautious and practical legislation, and authorised the belief that, at each stage of procedure, careful examination and scrutiny would precede the adoption of measures which could be alleged, by any party concerned, to infringe their rights or interests.
When, subsequently, statements were made in the House of Commons, that government was departing from this principle, in enforcing compulsory manumission, neither Mr. Canning, nor Mr. Wilmot Horton, thought proper openly to attempt an explicit refutation.
What is the commentary? Matters are now becoming more critical, and the Executive resort to the plea of acting only upon the declared will of the legislature in their justification. Let us give them every advantage. Let us discuss the propriety of compulsory manumission, as it agrees with the resolutions of parliament; and if we succeed in our endeavours, we shall command the more attention, from meeting our antagonists on the ground they have themselves selected.
Chapter II.
COMPULSORY MANUMISSION CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF PARLIAMENT.
The first of these often-quoted Resolutions declares, “That it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures for AMELIORATING the condition of the slave population in His Majesty’s colonies.”
It was to facilitate the accomplishment of this object of amelioration alone, that many respectable West India planters in England gave their sanction to the resolution; and it is proper here to state, that their interference and acquiescence was by no means of that sweeping character claimed for it by Earl Bathurst in his despatches to the colonies. They explicitly declared, that in none of their proceedings had they the intention of imposing restraints or difficulties upon the colonial legislatures.
The Second Resolution is, “That through a determined and persevering, but at the same time judicious and temperate, enforcement of such measures, this House looks forward to a progressive improvement in the character of the slave population, such as may PREPARE them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of His Majesty’s subjects.”
This resolution is the one which the writer, who has undertaken to illustrate the views of government, quotes as decisive of the case. He says, the object was “‘to adopt,’—aye, not only ‘to adopt,’ but ‘enforce’ such measures ‘in a determined and persevering, though at the same time judicious and temperate manner,’ as would effect,—what purpose?—the mitigation of the evils of slavery?—as would remove the odious imputation of inhumanity adhering to the West Indian planters, so generally prevalent at that time throughout England, whether true or false? No: to enforce such measures as might ‘prepare them for a participation in those civil rights and privileges which are enjoyed by other classes of His Majesty’s subjects.’”
The writer here deems contingent emancipation to be broadly and unequivocally provided, and in a very triumphant tone, he adds, “What! was the intellect of the West Indian members of the House of Commons who were present on that day, so obtuse, that they could not understand the meaning of those words?”