chain," and if any master thought that his slave had offended, he had a right to send him to that punishment. Men, boys, and even girls of the most tender age, had been subjected to this mode of torture; and the governor found that he could not interfere. Willing to alleviate the sufferings of these wretched people, he consulted the attorney-general, who gave an opinion that he had no right to remit the punishment awarded by the master. From a work which he then held in his hand, the cruelties inflicted by this kind of punishment were described as follows. "The slave who has been found guilty of any misdemeanor shall be put into the workhouse, where his labours are much harder than in the usual course of employment; he is employed to dig, and to perform other difficult duties, with a chain fixed about his body, and attached to other culprits, leaving him merely room to walk, whilst he is driven on to work by cattle whips, and other modes of castigation." In this view of the case, it was important to observe, that the king has the power of mitigating all sentences of punishment in this country, except those which are founded on an impeachment by the Commons; but in the island of Dominica the prerogative is limited by the power of the masters. The only effective remedy, in his opinion, would be that recommended by Mr. Burke to Mr. Dundas, and published in his posthumous works, which was to constitute the attorney-general in every island guardian of the slaves, and to make it an essential part of his duty to interpose

between the master and the slave when there should be a necessity.

Another thing which he thought his duty to mention was, the legislation of this country for the colonies. It had been said, that this country had not properly the power of legislating for her colonies. It was needless for him to state that it had been already done in numerous instances. Taking the matter into serious consideration, no man could for a moment imagine that the constitution could immediately apply to any of these colonies. The constitution should be taken in every part; it should be taken as a

whole. The moment an individual set his foot upon the British shore, he became as free as any other individual; but what could be more inconsistent than the conduct of those who talked of establishing that principle in the West India islands? The constitution would be then reversed and destroyed. What was recommended would be, under the auspices of British liberty, rendering slavery worse than under the most arbitrary government.

The laws passed in Dominica no long time since, for the purpose of encouraging the manumission of slaves, had not been attended to. A slave born on the island was obliged to pay 167. 10s. for his manumission, and those not born on it were obliged to pay 35l. The law by which this was enacted was passed in June 1810. It stated, that "No person of colour, coming from another island or colony, is entitled to his freedom, unless he produce a certificate, and pay a

certain

certain tax." By another law, any slave who came to the island, if not claimed by his master within a certain time, was sold for the benefit of the public. The whole of these laws were founded on a principle diametrically opposite to that which formed the basis of the British constitution; they went to render the state of slavery perpetual. With respect to those laws which appeared so well calculated to benefit the slave population, they not only were not executed, but were never designed to be so. On this point, the observation contained in a dispatch from governor Prevost to marquis Camden, written in January 1805, affords very strong evidence: He says "The act for encouraging the better government of slaves lately passed in Dominica, appears to have been considered, from the day it was passed till this hour, as a political measure, to prevent the interference of the mother country in the management of the slaves."

The hon. and learned gentleman then digressed to the case of one Huggins in the island of Nevis, who had already been brought to trial for cruelty to slaves of his own, and was lately tried for the same crime towards the slaves of another. A Mr. Cottle, on leaving the island, left Huggins as his attorney. He whipped two young lads very severely for receiving a pair of stockings which had been stolen; ordering them to receive 100 lashes each, though 39 lashes was the highest which was allowed by the law. Two female relations were also subjected to the lash VOL. LX.

for no other offence than that of their shedding tears. Huggin's was brought to trial by the king's senior counsel, exercising the duties of attorney-general; and though the facts were established, he was acquitted.

Sir Samuel R. concluded with moving for " Copies or Extracts from all Dispatches, Letters, and Papers in the office of his Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, which in any manner relate to the cases of John Baptist Louis Birmingham, Alexander le Guay, and John M Corry, against whom bills of indictment were preferred by his majesty's attorney-general for the island of Dominica, and to the presentment made by the Grand Jury of the same island on the 4th day of February 1817, and to any presentment made by the Grand Jury at Dominica at any subsequent period, which in any manner relate to the power of the owners of slaves in the same island to send their slaves to be kept to hard labour in the public chain, and to the right which the governor may have, by virtue of the royal prerogative, to remit the punishment of slaves so condemned by their masters to be kept to hard labour." Also, "Copies or Extracts from all Dispatches, Letters, and Papers, in the office of his Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, which in any manner relate to the case of Edward Huggins the elder, tried in the island of Nevis in May last, for cruelty to certain slaves under his charge."

Mr. Goulburn, after a speech for the most part apologetical concluded

concluded with saying, that he hoped the House would do him the credit to believe that he would not stand forward to defend any criminal, or to palliate any cruelty. The best means of exposing the one, and of preventing the other, was to lay full information before parliament, to keep a watchful eye on the transactions of our colonies, and to express an utter abhorrence of all cruel and unjust treatment, like that detailed by the hon. and learned gentleman, if the accounts of it were supported on proper evidence. He had no objection to produce the papers moved for, so far as he could; but he begged the House would excuse the imperfect state in which it might be in his power to grant the requisite information.

Several gentlemen rose to communicate their sentiments on this subject, respecting which they differed considerably from each other. Sir S. Romilly concluded with a short reply; and in fine, his motion was agreed to.

On May 20th Sir S. Romilly rose in the House for the purpose of making a motion for the appointment of a select committee on the papers relative to the treatment of slaves in the island of Nevis. In the observations which he intended to make, he should confine himself to what passed in the above island; and in the circumstances which he should mention, he did not mean to animadvert with severity on the persons he should name. He had before stated several matters which took place in Nevis, and which called for legislative inter ference; and amongst others, he had mentioned the conduct of a

Mr. Huggins, who had been left manager of a Mr. Cottle's estate in that island. The hon. gentleman then gave a relation of all that had happened concerning the punishment of two young slaves for purchasing stockings suspected of being stolen, and of two women who shed tears at their punishment; and also of Huggins's acquittal after being tried for the offence. On this subject papers had been transmitted to the secretary of state from the counsel for the crown on the trial. Other accounts had also been transmitted from the legislative council. In these papers it appeared rather extraordinary, that the speech of Mr. Huggins at the legislative assem bly in his own defence, and also a resolution of the assembly that Huggins's defence should be entered on their journals, were made public. But it will be necessary to inform the House how this assembly was constituted; or at least who the parties were by whom these accounts had been sent.

One of them was the identical Mr. Huggins, who had been tried: another was the brother; another the son; and the last the father of this same Mr. Huggins. Another gentleman who formed one of the legislative assembly was the retained counsel of Mr. Huggins. He could not help observing that he never witnessed greater partiality than was shown by this assembly. They were not content with sending their own account, but also sent a letter of the governor of the island, who said that he was perfectly satisfied with the verdict. It appeared from the whole of the

transaction

transaction as if the governor and council of the island had sacrificed themselves in order to protect Huggins. He did not mean to say that the punishment to which he alluded was at all extraordinary; but whether it was or was not, still if it was unmerited, it called for redress, and in order to obtain it, inquiry was necessary.

He should now move, "That a select committee be ap⚫ pointed to take into consideration certain papers laid before this House on the 30th day of April last, relating to the treatment of Slaves in the island of Nevis, and to report their observations thereupon to the House."

Mr. Goulburn remarked, that his opposition to the motion rested solely on the general principle of its being inexpedient for the House to interfere upon exparte evidence, with the judicial proceedings of a competent tribunal. It was on this ground that he had signified his intention of resisting the motion, and not with the view of defending the character of Mr. Huggins. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, had put the question on somewhat of a different footing, by stating that documents of a garbled nature had been pro duced from the office of the secretary of state, and that the blame must attach either to that office, or the agent for the island. In this view he had no objection to the inquiry by a committee; for the office of secretary of state had as much right to complain, as the House, if imperfect and mutilated accounts had been transmitted.

Mr. Marryat entered into

several particulars respecting the conduct of Mr. Huggins and the slaves, from which he endeavoured to prove that the former had not given proofs of excessive severity. If, said he, any cruelty had been exercised, he would not be its apologist; but he did not think any good could arise from the perpetual agitation of questions like the present. He would always contend for the policy of employing the interference of the mother country prudently, imperceptibly, and silently, taking care that no groundless clamour was excited, and no sentiments tending to the subversion of order and subordination were inculcated. ticularly deprecated doctrines that had a tendency to excite insurrection among the slaves, or to convince them that they were treated with cruelty or injustice by being kept in a state of servitude. It ought to be recollected, that the dominion of the whites was founded on opinion; and if that opinion was destroyed, the authority of the planters was at an end. He concluded by saying, that he saw no reason for the inquiry, and should therefore oppose the motion.

He par

After several other remarks had been made by different speakers, Sir S. Romilly rose to reply. After making some other remarks respecting the treatment of the slaves at Nevis, he said (alluding to Mr. Marryat) that they were now told, that the question of registering slaves, and others concerning them, had no other effect than to excite disorder and insubordination among them, and to break the charm which bound the slave to his [12]

master.

master.

This argument would go to prevent all discussion on the subject, as well here, as in the West India islands. It was the custom to attribute every insurrection among the slaves to those who took an active interest in their condition of late years. The charge was unfounded. Revolts were much more frequent before the abolition, than they had been since, for which there was a very good reason, because the treatment of slaves was much better now than in former times. The motion was then agreed to, and a Select Committee was appointed.

The same indefatigable friend of mankind, Sir Samuel Romilly, rose on June 3rd to make his promised motion for a copy of depositions taken before the coroner in the island of Nevis on the body of a negro, named Congo Jack. In bringing forward this case, he said he did not call the attention of the House to the extraordinary barbarity by which it was accompanied, for that, glaring as it was, appeared to him much less important than the light it threw on the mode of administering criminal justice in the West India islands, where the protection of slaves was at stake. The facts which had occurred were simply these: A rev. Mr. Rawlins had the management of an estate in St. Christopher's (a neighbouring island to Nevis) belonging to a Mr. Hutchinson. A slave had run away from it on the Tuesday, was taken and brought back on the Wednesday, flogged in the severest manner on Thursday, and chained to another slave, who had committed some

offence, and dragged to work with the rest of the men on Friday morning. He was still chained to the other slave, and when brought to his work, was incapable of doing any thing, and complained of severe pain, hunger, and sickness. He tried to lie down in this state, but was severely flogged by the sticks of one or two drivers. The consequence of this treatment was that the wretched being died in the course of Friday, actually chained to his fellow-slave. He was buried privately on the same day, and no coroner's inquest was at the moment called, though his body was covered with marks of violence. Some intimation of this cruelty had been given to the magistrates, and a coroner was then ordered to sit on the body, which was dug up for examination. The present object of this motion was, for the depositions of the coroner to be transmitted to this country, which, strange to say, had not yet been done. But it appeared from the evidence given on the subsequent trial, that at the coroner's inquest Dr. O'Mealey deposed, that he attended at Hutchinson's estate on the 9th of September, accompanied by two other doctors; that he had examined the deceased, who was then taken out of his grave, and found several marks on his body; one on his right eye, one on his right jaw, one on the right arm, one on the right breast, one on the right side of the belly, and some on his thighs: there might have been others, but those described were the most remarkable. Two of his teeth were recently broken. The contusions

must