minds are not excited and inflamed by the delusive hopes of eman

cipation.

JOHN LAIDLAW.

WILLIAM BLANC.

HENRY J. GLANVILLE.

JOSEPH COURT.

ROBERT BURT."

If against the above official document the same disingenuous and illiberal assertion is to be urged, namely, that it comes from parties interested; then all we can say is, the document is public, the severest investigation is challenged to its truth, let it be controverted if it can be; and if it can be, it ought to be; and then, not only will that which is as yet a matter of mere suspicion and insinuation be substantiated, but a case justifying direct interference with the legislatures of the various colonies, will be made out.

Far be it from us to express a perfect satisfaction at the various statements of the preceding report; it is the report of slavery; but then such slavery does not carry with it the characteristics of "unrelenting cruelty"-of power unlimited and unrestrained”—or of its being the " maximum of labour, with the minimum of food;" and as our readers may draw their own inferences from the document, we may only observe upon it, that it appears that the seed of emancipation is already sown-it has only to be permitted to it, to bring forth fruit by the effect of its local cultivation

We do not, however, agree with the colonists in their estimate of the comparative situation of the British labourer and the slave; and on this point certainly Mr. Wilberforce has a triumphant argument. If man indeed was a mere vegetating being, to be fed and clothed, and cured in illness, then the West Indian Negro has the best situation upon the average. But why is he so fed and clothed, and attended upon in sickness?-because he is a slave, and his labour is profitable, and his death a personal loss. It is to degrade human nature to draw a parallel between a human machine and a free agent. Yet, on the other hand, it may be said-but said with a painful truththat the slave is not alive to all those fine and exalted feelings, those tendernesses and chaste affections, of which the visionist represents him to be capable, and in the non-enjoyment of which, his hard lot is supposed to consist.

Again, if in some cases lesser punishments are inflicted upon the slave than upon the freeman, is it from motives of humanity or of self-interest? We cannot but allow that it is from the latter-the slave is less punished, because a greater degree would decrease the value of, or a proportion of his labour; yet, though not from the purest source, still a merciful and forbearing system of treatment towards the slave does arise; and upon it, is founded an attachment of the negro to his master -a principle which ought not to be unnecessarily or officiously disturbed.

We cannot dismiss Mr. Wilberforce's appeal, without quoting the following observations from "The Bahama Letter," as to the policy of direct interference with the Colonial Legislatures:—

"Most of the colonies, it is admitted, make excellent laws for the protection of the slaves; but, according to Mr. Wilberforce, none of them are executed; and, until Parliament interferes, the slaves will never be the better for any law. But with due deference, let us ask, can Parliament itself in its omnipotence, do any thing more than make laws? And if the colonial laws are evaded by the colonies themselves, what would there be to protect the enactments of Parliament from a similar fate? If the laws which we ourselves provide, with a close and intimate knowledge of the subject requiring regulation, are not carried into execution, would the difficulty be lessened by having the same subject regulated by gentlemen, able statesmen no doubt, but with very little other insight into our affairs, but what they acquire from official reports, documents too often of a mere artificial character, and the writings and speeches of persons, all whose little greatness and influence, and sometimes whose comfortable incomes, or daily bread, in a great measure depend upon keeping up the cry of avarice, rapacity, irreligion, and cruelty, against the whole of the West Indies."

When part of the Common-sense Book was already in the press, we thought it necessary not to disregard a publication which had subsequently made its appearance, entitled, Stephen on West Indian Slavery." The day on which our labours must be submitted to the public being fixed, enough of time is not permitted to go through the work alluded to elaborately; but it has a long preface, and confining our observations to that preface alone, we think the same principle

of antiquated references, and of customs long passed, or so altered as scarcely to be recognized, will be found to bottom Mr. Stephen's performance; which is pushed forward at the request of the London Society for mitigating and gradually abolishing Slavery.

The mitigation and gradual abolition of slavery is no longer the object or wish of any individual society, it is the wish of the whole kingdom; if there were no obstacles to it, the measure would be decided by the legislature to-morrow, and be acquiesced in cheerfully by the colonists. Whether the principles of Mr. Stephen's work tend to promote the conciliatory spirit between all parties, by which alone this most desirable measure may be safely accomplished; or whether it does not throw the apple of discord at a moment when the gracious communication of the King to Parliament had laid down distinct and well understood principles of guidance, will now be seen. If by the examination of those principles it should appear that the object is to promote a breach between the British Parliament and the colonial legislatures, and to raise that legal but delicate question, whether the colonies having institutions for their own local purposes in such matters, are bound by the acts of a British House of Commons," then we argue that the manner in which the work in question is compiled does any thing but tend to promote the amelioration and en

franchisement of the negro population, and that the object of a well meaning society is consequently frustrated by its own agent.

On public questions, agitated by an individual, it is impossible to avoid the mention of the name of the party, but when we cannot refrain from personality in its obnoxious meaning, the Common-sense Book loses its character and meaning; we speak, therefore, not of Mr. Stephen, but of Mr. Stephen's book..

Mr. Stephen, in his preface, appears to anticipate that an objection will be made to a publication requested of him in February, 1823, since in the following May certain resolutions had been entered on the journals of the House of Commons, pledging it to important reformations both in the law and practice of slavery, and for the progressive termination even of the state itself.

Mr. Stephen might indeed well anticipate such an objection; he urges, that had his work appeared previously to the resolutions of the House of Commons, that then he should have foretold the manner of their reception in the various colonies; and he now rests his defence of the necessity of the publication upon the manner in which such resolutions have been met by the colonial legislature. The author says, "the non-compliance of many, if not all the assemblies, is now matter, not of anticipation, but experience," and then goes on