SLAVERY IN THE COLONIES.

MAY 24, 1832.

On Mr. Fowell Buxton's Motion for a Select Committee to consider what Measures should be adopted for effecting the Extinction of Slavery throughout the British Dominions.

AFTER the very extensive view of this subject which has been taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Fowell Buxton), I shall not attempt a general survey of the subjects of negro slavery, but merely confine myself to the question of the decrease of the negro population, the only point of all my hon. friend's argument that the member for Dumfries (Mr. K. Douglas) has ventured to dispute. The hon. member has not contented himself with charging my hon. friend with a mis-statement, but has actually gone the length of accusing him of having knowingly and wilfully brought forward a statement which he was, in his own mind, convinced was incorrect. I beg, however, to say, that I am, in my own mind, most entirely convinced that the argument of my hon. friend is impregnable. I first say that this decrease, which the hon. gentleman attributes to the inequality of the sexes, is to be found in many islands where the females exceeded the males in number in the year 1817. I next say that in St. Christopher's, which is the island selected by the hon. member himself, the women in 1817 exceeded the men in numbers. To be sure, the hon. gentleman has talked about the sexes approximating in 1825 and 1826; but if this means anything, it means that the women diminished in number, for it cannot be otherwise explained. It is true that, in Barbadoes, the black population has increased, which circumstance the hon. gentleman may attribute to what he calls the approximation of the sexes, if he pleases, but which I attribute to the cultivation of sugar being little practised in that island.

But, sir, there are some colonies in which the number of the

men exceeds that of the women; such, for instance, are Berbice, Demerara, and Trinidad; and there we find not only that there is a total decrease, but even a decrease in the number of the females. I say that this fact reduces the whole matter to irresistible demonstration; for if he be correct, and if the men exceed the women, the worst that could happen would be, that the islands would be in as bad a situation as if the men were reduced to the number of the women, and the two sexes made equal. But if we look to those colonies, we shall find that there is a decrease in the women as well as in the men; and therefore again I say that it is clear to demonstration, that the decrease in the slave population cannot arise from this ill-assortment of the sexes, as argued by the hon. gentleman. But the hon. gentleman seems to think that he has done enough when he has made out, as he supposes, that no decrease has taken place; but I contend that, not only should there be no decrease, but that there should be a most rapid and striking increase. The negro population in the West Indies are placed in a situation admirably suited to their nature and disposition; the produce of the land is all-prolific-the bright and vivid sky is favourable to their African constitutions—they have a great extent of rich virgin soil ready to pour forth its gifts, with but little labour, into their hands. This, therefore, ought, to them, to be the golden age of existence; it ought to be their age of easy life, smiling children, and happy wives; it ought to be their age of high wages, full meals, light work, early marriages, and numerous families. But is it so? Alas! sir, no; a blight is on them, and they drag on a weary, burdensome existence, darkened by despair, and uncheered by a single ray of hope.

Let us look at the result of the same advantages in other countries. How is it in New South Wales? There the population is made up of convicts and prostitutes; and yet, in spite of that deterioration-in spite of the inequality of the sexeswe see that colony daily increasing, with every probability of these convicts becoming the patriarchs of a mighty empire. We all know the origin of the United States; we all know that they were originally peopled by the refuse of European society. And how is it with them? The population there has gone on

swelling and swelling, like an irresistible torrent; the people have multiplied, till at length, in whole tribes, they have poured themselves across the mountains of Alleghany, the streams of Ohio, and the plains of the Arkansas. Year after year the woods and the forests, the fortresses of nature, have been receding before the advancing tide of human beings; and, year after year, mankind has shown, by its multiplication, that, under favourable circumstances, its tendency is to fulfil the immutable law of nature. Why, then, does not the same rule apply to those colonies? Why is all America teeming with life, and why are the West Indies becoming desolate?

Sir, that our colonies should decrease in so rapid a manner is to me one of the most appalling facts in the history of the world. In the worst-governed state of Europe-in the worstmanaged condition of society-the people still increase. Look, for instance, at the miserable population of Ireland-at the oppressed serfs of Russia-look even at the slave-population of America, or that of our own colonies where sugar is not cultivated. In the Bermudas and the Bahamas, where no sugar is manufactured, the population goes on increasing; but when we come to the sugar-islands, the ordinary law of nature is inverted, and in proportion to the exuberance of the soil is the curse of suffering and of death. In these islands, which are subject to one eternal reign of terror, human life flickers and goes out like a candle in a mephitic atmosphere. What the Spaniards did on the continent for gold, we are doing in the islands for sugar. Let me remind the House of what Mr. Fox said on this subject. No one will deny that, perhaps, of all our statesmen, Mr. Fox was the most ardent for political liberty; and yet his observation on this question was, that all political liberty was but as a mere nothing compared with personal liberty. I shall give my best support to the motion of my hon. friend. I shall do so, because I feel that this continued waste of life, without example and without parallel, is a foul blot to this country, and because I hope that the adoption of this resolution may remove it.

THE RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN.

JULY 12, 1832.

On Lord Althorp's Motion for a Committee of the whole House, to take into consideration the Convention with Russia regarding the Russian-Dutch Loan.*

He could have wished that the conduct to be pursued by the gallant officer (Colonel Davies) who had last addressed the House were the direct reverse to that he had announced himself it would be, and that, on the vote of censure upon the Government, he should vote against them, and in that respecting the violation of national faith, he should be with them. It was of little importance by whom the affairs of the country were administered, but it was of the deepest moment that the national honour should be preserved inviolate. Considering that upon this subject hung the national faith and honour of England, he confessed it did in the highest degree astonish him that hon. members should think of introducing topics which had not the slightest relation to such a subject. If we were bound

Lord Althorp, in moving for a Committee of the House, thus stated this question: -The House was aware that, in 1815, a treaty had been entered into between the King of the Netherlands, England, and Russia, and that previously a treaty had been concluded between Great Britain and the King of the Netherlands, to take upon themselves the payment of a certain portion of a loan due from the Emperor of Russia. It was not now necessary to enter into that question-to inquire whether this arrange. ment was right or wrong; it was sufficient to consider if the treaty was binding in equity and honour upon this country. The agreement concluded was, that the Netherlands and Great Britain should undertake to pay the interest of a loan due from the Emperor of Russia, at five per cent., together with a sinking fund of one per cent., until the whole loan was extinguished. In case of the separation between Belgium and Holland, it was provided that the obligation of the King of the Netherlands and Great Britain ceased. This was the letter of the treaty. The separation had taken place. The question was, if it were such as was contemplated by the treaty, and if this country was absolved, in justice and honour, from paying its portion of the debt. He thought not. The separation was not such a separation as was contemplated by the treaty, which was exclusively one effected by foreign force.

by the solemn obligations of a mutual compact, of what importance to us was the general conduct of the monarch with whom that compact might have been contracted? Were we at full liberty to enter into as many treaties as we please with all the monarchs of the world, and yet keep faith only with those who proved to be merciful, liberal, and constitutional rulers? We entered into treaties with the Burmese and Siamese Governments; and were we to require of them that they should conform their respective principles of government to that which we conceived might be suitable and becoming as between them and their subjects? The only argument on that side of the House was the necessity of keeping faith; and how had the hon. and gallant member met that argument? Why, the hon. and gallant member talked as if we paid tribute to Russia, at the moment it was attacking Poland. On what ground else did he speak of economy? To exercise economy in a case of this description, the payment must be optional, for he had not yet heard anybody rise in the House and say that economy was to be preserved at the expense of national honour. If the common-sense interpretation of the treaty called upon this country for its execution, the hon. and gallant member might as well call upon them to economise by a reduction of the Three per Cents, or a non-payment of Exchequer Bills.

The question which they were then engaged in debating naturally divided itself into two parts. The first was, whether or not the country was bound, by the most obvious principles of public faith, to continue these payments; secondly, did Government act illegally in continuing them without obtaining a new Act of Parliament for the purpose? All the hon. members who spoke upon the other side professed to pursue the object of keeping these questions perfectly distinct; and yet it strangely enough happened, that there was not one amongst them who did not mix both these topics; and that confusion of those questions was strikingly conspicuous where Vattel was referred to. Referring to the Treaty of 1815, he must admit that, if they examined the letter of that treaty, they would find that the proviso had arisen, and that we were absolved from the pay