Dr. RAPKY--Mr. Fishbourne.
Sir LIONEL--I am afraid I cannot please you. The question of possession of lands and houses has for the present been settled by the opinion of the Attorney-General, but it is still an undetermined question at law. There are many persons in the island who are of opinion that the legislature had not so intended; he (Sir Lionel) was at a loss to know what they meant; seeing, however, some members of the assembly present, perhaps they would be disposed to give some information.
Mr. S.J. DALLAS said, that it was the intention of the legislature that rent should be paid. He thought it fair that 1s. 8d. per day should be offered the people to work five days in the week, they returning one day's labor for the houses and grounds.
Mr. SPECIAL JUSTICE HAMILTON said that complaints had been made to him, that in many instances where the husband and wife lived in the same house, rent had been demanded of both. The laborers had, in consequence, been thrown into a state of consternation and alarm, which accounted for the unsettled state of several properties--a serious bone of contention had in consequence been produced. He held a notice in his hand demanding of a laborer the enormous sum of 10s. per week for house and ground. He had seen other notices in which 6s, 8d. and 5s. had been demanded for the same. He did not consider that the parties issuing those notices had acted with prudence.
Mr. HYSLOP explained--He admitted the charge, but said that the sum was never intended to be exacted.
Sir LIONEL said he was aware of what was going on; he had heard of it. "It was a policy which ought no longer to be pursued."
We have given the foregoing documents, full and ungarbled, that our readers might fairly judge for themselves. We have not picked here a sentence and there a sentence, but let the Governor, the Assembly, the Missionaries, and the press tell their whole story. Let them be read, compared, and weighed.
We might indefinitely prolong our extracts from the West India papers to show, not only in regard to the important island of Jamaica, but Barbados and several other colonies, that the former masters are alone guilty of the non-working of the emancipated, so far as they refuse to work. But we think we have already produced proof enough to establish the following points:--
1. That there was a strong predisposition on the part of the Jamaica planters to defraud their labourers of their wages. They hoped that by yielding, before they were driven quite to the last extremity, by the tide of public sentiment in England, they should escape from all philanthropic interference and surveillance, and be able to bring the faces of their unyoked peasantry to the grindstone of inadequate wages.
2. That the emancipated were not only peaceful in their new freedom, but ready to grant an amnesty of all post abuses, and enter cheerfully into the employ of their former masters for reasonable wages. That in cases where disagreement has arisen as to the rate of daily or weekly wages, the labourers have been ready to engage in task work, to be paid by the piece, and have laboured so efficiently and profitably--proving a strong disposition for industry and the acquisition of property.