1838]

DIFFICULTY IN JAMAICA

27

in spite of the munificent gift with which England had compensated the slave-owners by the Emancipation Bill of 1833. The The Jamaica efforts for the repression of the trade had in some difficulty. points merely aggravated its evils; the postponement of complete emancipation, and the introduction of a temporary system of apprenticeship had proved a failure. Lord Brougham, who brought the question before the House in January 1838, on pre- The evils of senting a petition for immediate emancipation, pointed modified emancipation. out the terrible horrors of the slave-carrying trade which still existed. All the measures taken for putting an end to the trade had only resulted in a slight diminution of the number of slaves carried, and in a very great increase of their misery. Treaties had been entered into with most of the European Powers which enabled English cruisers to prevent the shipment of slaves, but in the case of Portugal it was not until the slaves were actually on board that the right of search or seizure accrued. Again, the prize-money for the capture of slavers was given in proportion to the number of slaves. In some cases therefore inevitably, in others probably for interested motives, it was usual to allow the slaves to be placed on board and to attempt to capture the ship when laden. As the success of the trader therefore depended on the speed of his ship, the slavers were built entirely for speed without regard to accommodation. As long as the trade had been a lawful one it had been regulated, and a certain amount of air and food apportioned to each slave; these arrangements had now disappeared, the slaves were packed as close as possible in narrow inconvenient vessels, and when pursued the living cargo was thrown overboard without compunction to lighten the ship. Under these conditions the trade was still profitable, and was still so largely pursued that in one year (1835), eighty ships, with a freight of 28,000 slaves, had entered the port of Havana. The effect of the modified emancipation, which had allowed forced apprenticeship to last till the year 1840, had been equally ineffectual in improving the condition of the blacks after they were landed. Even from selfish motives the slave-owner generally takes the same care of his human property as a farmer does of his cattle. But as apprentices the negroes had ceased to be the property of the planter. It was the interest of the master to wring from them as much as possible during their apprenticeship, while they were still within his grasp. With insufficient food, overworked, and subjected to the severest punishments, sometimes illegal, sometimes inflicted under the guise of law, the apprentice was worse off than the slave had been. Basing his

Brougham's proposal for immediate emancipation rejected.

arguments on such facts as these, Lord Brougham moved resolutions, the most important of which was one which recommended immediate emancipation. Great philanthropic movements are almost inevitably mingled with a certain amount of charletanry, and the Government, carefully guarding itself and perhaps rightly against sentimental enthusiasm, opposed Lord Brougham's suggestions upon the ground that immediate abolition would be a breach of faith. England had entered, they urged, into a distinct contract with the planters, the essential point of which was the gradual and not immediate abolition of slavery. The stipulations of that contract had indeed been strained and broken by the planters, but it was inconsistent with the honour of the nation to go back from its bargain. The House of Lords on this occasion agreed with the ministerial view, and Lord Brougham's resolutions were lost. A great debate of the same character in the House of Commons terminated in the same manner. It was held that, whatever the consequences, the pledged word of Parliament could not be broken.

Two Bills to amend the evils.

Yet it was thought necessary to introduce two Bills to restrict the unjust violence of the planters. It was upon these two Bills that the grave difficulties with the Jamaica colonists hung-difficulties which involved the resignation of Lord Melbourne's Government. One of these Acts, known as the Act to amend the Abolition of Slavery Act," attempted to find some remedies for the evil of the apprenticeship system. The other was aimed at the abuses-fully recognised and of long standing-which had arisen in the management of the prisons in the West Indies. Domestic punishment and imprisonment had been made unlawful; the public prisons became therefore of great importance, and their unrestricted management by the planters and their agents had turned them in many cases into torture chambers. The Bill placed them directly in the hands of the Queen and Council—that is, of the Imperial Government. The evils of the apprenticeship system-the inevitable evils, arising from the existence of a class at once slaves and not slaves; the difficulty of exacting work-without the reward offered by wages, and with coercion of a restricted character-from men used to labour upon compulsion only; and the danger, nay, almost the certainty of the undue use of power by the master class smarting under the losses which emancipation entailed upon them had been obvious not only in Jamaica but in the other West India colonies. Less irritated by what had happened, and perhaps more wisely governed, several of

1838]

EMANCIPATION OF THE SLAVES

Jamaica.

29

these colonies had thought it better to proceed to immediate and complete emancipation. Thus when Sir Lionel Smith, the Governor of Jamaica, promulgated the "Act of Amendment" (June 1st, 1838), he accompanied it with a strong recommendation to the Consequent Assembly to follow the same course, emphasising his disaffection in advice by pointing out the great difficulty of supporting apprenticeship in the face of the action of the other colonies. Much against their will, and with extreme irritation against the Imperial Government, the Colonists thought it wise to yield to public opinion in England, and to listen to the advice thus pressed upon them. They agreed to immediate abolition. But while yielding they could not forbear to show the bitterness of their anger at being forced, as they chose to believe unconstitutionally, to give their consent. "In consequence of the Act recently passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom," they said, "a Parliament wherein we are in no way represented, we have been constrained to abandon the remaining term of the apprenticeship."

The slaves

August 1838.

While their masters were in this sulky temper, on the 1st of August the blacks became absolutely free. There had been dread of outbreak and outrage, and of a permanent dis- emancipated. inclination on the part of the blacks to work for wages. According to the evidence of the Governor and the Bishop the fear was groundless. They declared "that the moment of freedom was one of orderly and solemn thankfulness, and that the churches and chapels were everywhere filled with these happy people, in humble gratitude for the great blessing conferred upon them." And at first the Governor reported that everywhere there was visible a fair amount of readiness to accept wage labour. Any difficulty which arose came from the side of the planters. They were too angry to allow fair play to the change which had been made, or to refrain from using tyrannically the advantages in their hands. By every means in their power, by demanding enormous rents and by wholesale evictions, they strove to beat down the wages they would have to pay, and to impose upon the helplessness of the black labourers. The missionaries, the stipendiary magistrates, and the Governor himself, found it necessary to support the cause of the oppressed blacks. Considerable excitement was the consequence, and the Governor entirely lost the popularity he had once enjoyed. In the the Prisons midst of this excitement the second Bill, the "Jamaica Prisons Bill," was somewhat hastily promulgated. There could be no doubt as to the malpractices prevalent in the prisons, but

Reception of

Bill.

the circumstances attending the production of the Bill were perhaps needlessly irritating. A commissioner, Captain Pringle, had been appointed to examine and report upon the prisons. Without in any way mentioning the results of his inquiries to the Colonial Parliament, he had returned direct to England and given in the report on which the new Bill was based. And as it happened on the very day that the news had been received in England that the colonists had consented to immediate emancipation, the Prisons Bill-overriding the constitutional power of supervision belonging to the Colonial Parliament-placed in the hands of the Governor, checked only by his responsibility to the Queen in Council, the entire management of the prisons; a very poor return, in the opinion of the planters, for their acquiescence in the wishes of the English public. Irritating in itself, the Bill was not produced in a conciliatory manner. A friendly and argumentative despatch intended to soften its effect had accompanied it, but was kept back by the Governor till the Assembly should meet. An outburst of anger was the result. When in November the Assembly met, it at once passed resolutions declaring the Bill to be a violation of the constitutional rights of the colonists, and expressing its determination to "abstain from the exercise of any legislative functions, except those necessary to preserve the public credit, till they knew whether they were to be treated as free subjects or as a conquered Colony." This determination implied the most serious inconvenience. A number of annual laws were approaching the time of their expiration, and could not be renewed. Yet as they related to such matters as vagrancy, squatting, and contracts, they were of more than usual importance at the present conjuncture. But the Legislature clung to its resolutions, and was dissolved. As the Governor had foreseen, the Assembly which took its place displayed the same temper, refused to modify the resolutions, and was permanently prorogued. The political deadlock resembled that which had preceded the Canadian rebellion, but with this important difference: in Canada the Assembly expressed the voice of the bulk of the people-unwise, perhaps, but claiming what they believed to be their rights against the encroachments of the dominant class,-while in Jamaica it represented a constituency of at most 2000 of a dominant class claiming their privileges against the mass of newly emancipated citizens. It was not unnatural however under the circumstances that the Government should pursue a similar course to that they had adopted in Canada. Though their

Proposal to suspend the Jamaica constitution.

1839]

RESIGNATION OF MINISTRY

31

agent there, hampered by party influences at home and misled by his own impulsive character, had committed grave errors, the wisdom of establishing a temporary despotism, under the shadow of which a new constitution might be established, was scarcely to be questioned. If it was wise in Canada, it was surely wiser in Jamaica, where the whole framework of society was undergoing a violent change. The Government accordingly introduced a Bill, the principle of which was that the constitution of Jamaica should be suspended for five years, and the government placed in the hands of the Governor and a council of three commissioners charged with the duty of making such laws as the state of the Colony required. At the expiration of that time the constitution was to be restored. But as usual in English politics, the wisdom of the principle went for little in the heat of party strife. Questionable points in the detail of the Bill, and the management on the part of the Government of the circumstances which had rendered the Bill necessary, were fixed upon with avidity by the Opposition. The grounds set forth in the preamble for the action taken were declared to be inadequate. The promulgation of the Prisons Act without its accompanying despatch was regarded as a needless aggravation of its severity. The Government was charged with hastily snatching at an opportunity for abrogating the constitution. Sir Robert Peel, who led the attack, declared his wish that efforts at compromise should be made, and an opportunity given to the Assembly to withdraw from its false position. On this ground he opposed the Bill as it was going into committee after the second reading, and a division taken at this point showed a majority in favour of the Ministry of five only. A Government in a perpetual minority in the Lords, and able to rely upon a superiority of little more than twenty votes in the Commons, could not bear up against such a diminution of its narrow majority. of Ministry. May 7th, 1839. Least of all, as Lord John Russell urged, could a Government thus slightly supported carry out with advantage to the public interest a struggle between the mother country and a contumacious Colony. The Ministry of Lord Melbourne thought it right to resign. There could be little doubt that their position was not a dignified The vehemence with which every now and then they declared that they would not exist on sufferance shows how fully they recognised that they really did so exist, and the soreness which the position caused them. Probably they would all have been glad enough to have seen their opponents surrounded by the difficulties under which they had been

one.

Resignation

Peel declines

the Ministry

unless the

Queen's ladies are changed.