MY LORD,

IN my letter, under date January 4th, I pointed out to your Lordship, in some remarkable examples, the total disregard for truth which rules the enemies of the Colonies in every publication which they put forth. The statements which Mr Stephen has thought proper to promulgate in his new volume on Colonial Slavery, reflecting upon my character as an individual, and upon my works in defence of the Colonies, compel me for a moment to return to the same disgusting labour.

Accustomed as I have been to AntiColonial slanders, and to the bitter gall of the pens of its champions, such conduct and accusations as I am about to allude to, give me little concern. Their unguarded attacks only lay them open to severer castigation, while the soreness which they feel is evidence sufficient that the exposures which I have made of their scandalous proceedings have been felt in the proper quarters.

Not having, as Mr Stephen has, £3600 per annum from a public establishment in Great Britain, and being, moreover, one of those unfortunate individuals, who, by the laws of this free country, may be rendered the "PROPERTY" of some of my fellow-countrymen, if I fail to pay for the food, clothing, and other necessaries sent from Great Britain for the use of those slaves which Mr Stephen and his righteous associates seek to take away, I cannot, on that account, spare five years, or one year (this time it would require) to make up a book which could properly expose all his tortuous windings, misrepresentations, and obvious falsehoods. I must therefore confine myself to a few of those, premising that these afford a fair specimen of the contents of his book, and of the manner in which every point and subject in it is treated and misrepresented.

At the close of his Preface, page 33, Mr Stephen tells us, that he took nearly a "year" to print his volume; the publications in defence of the Colonies, which he had to notice, "having just appeared, or met my

eye at certain points." Fudge! The report of the Privy Council in 1789, and the report of the House of Commons in 1788, Moody's, Macdonnell's, Macqueen's, Barclay's Colonial works, which Mr Stephen refers to, were all, with the exception of the last short pamphlet, written by the latter gentleman in 1829, published several years ago, and seen and noticed by Mr Stephen and his friends at the earliest day. So much for the confusion of facts and dates by Mr Stephen at the very outset!

At page 197, Mr Stephen, with his characteristic Anti-Colonial rancour, designates me the " dashing pensioner of the Planters," who "has exceeded his instructions;" and, not content with these epithets,' he adds:

"Having mentioned this writer more than once as a mercenary antagonist, employed by the Assemblies and the planters, and largely paid by them for his pre-eminent zeal in their service, it may be right to apprise my readers, that the fact of his liberal retainers

Mr

is far from matter of secrecy or reserve in the sugar colonies. His rewards have been repeatedly announced in strains of eulogy by various newspapers there; and I have now before me the Jamaica Courant of April 28th, 1828, in which the fact of his having received, in one instance, £3000 sterling, is noticed in a different style, you, Master Macqueen, have received £3000 sterling money;' and again, you, Mr Macqueen, are the hired advocate of slavery,' &c. Macqueen is thus contemptuously treated for having censured the alleged communication to a Jamaica printer of the Duke of Manchester's private letter to Lord Bathurst, and for his opposition to Mr Beaumont, and his pamphlet, entitled Compensation to Slave Owners;' a work which, it is added, has obtained the sanction of all liberal men in Jamaica- not for a sum of money, Master Macqueen,'" &c.

This compound of undiluted venom is collected at the expense of truth, merely to give colour to the insinuation that your humble servant is, as a Colonist, hostile to emancipation, even if compensation was given. Here it is necessary shortly to observe, that Mr Beaumont is the Jamaica printer alluded to; that I never saw his "Compensation to Slave

Owners;" that it is the first time I ever heard there was such a work in existence; and therefore, it is, as Mr Stephen knew it to be, false, that I ever opposed it; while it was not an "alleged communication," but an actual communication to a Jamaica printer, not of a private letter from the Duke of Manchester to Lord Bathurst, but of a private and confidential letter from Lord Bathurst to the Duke of Manchester, which was given and published; and the publication of which was censured. This censure was the sole ground of Mr Beaumont's gratuitous and unjustifiable attack upon me, which should never have been noticed, unless I had found it garbled, and, for a vindictive purpose, brought forward in a work addressed to the King. Mr Stephen thus takes a polluted source as his authority, and he is welcome to the full benefit of it.

To refute the authority on which Mr Stephen grounds his slanders, and also Mr Stephen himself, I adduce the unanimous resolution and vote of the Assembly of Jamaica, Nov. 26th, 1825, and acceded to by the Council and the Governor, thus:

"Resolved, That it be recommended to the House, to direct the Receiver-General to remit to the agent, out of monies in his hands, the sum of three thousand pounds sterling, to be paid by him to James M'Queen of the City of Glasgow, free of all deduction, as a testimony of the high sense this House entertains of the valuable and UNSOLICITED SERVICES he has rendered by his writings to the CAUSE OF JUSTICE and the West India Colonies, in REPLYING TO AND REFUTING THE INNUMERABLE CALUMNIES OF A MALIGNANT FACTION IN THE MOTHER COUNTRY."

Here, my Lord, are no pensions, no mercenary applications, no "instructions," but the unexpected reward for "unsolicited services, in the cause of justice," and for "refuting the innumerable calumnies of a malignant faction in the mother country." Such were my labours; such was the reward. This was my offence in the eyes of Mr Stephen and his associates. I am proud, my Lord, of the reward, and the manner in which it was given. It refutes the silly accusations of Mr Beaumont, and the base application of these by Mr Stephen; and while I throw back in the teeth of both, with scorn, the

charge of being " a mercenary antagonist,"-" a hired advocate of slavery," I fix upon Mr Stephen, without the fear of contradiction, the disgraceful brand, that to do me an injury, he has uttered a mean and a malevolent falsehood.

The censure, which, according to Mr Stephen, called forth the anger of his friend, Mr Beaumont, arose out of the following circumstance which took place in the House of Commons, February 27th, 1828:

"Mr WILMOT HORTON observed, that it appeared that a person of the name of Beaumont, in Jamaica, had in some manner possessed himself of a confidential correspondence between the Secretary of the Colonies and the Government of Jamaica, which he had published in a newspaper there. He boasted that he had received it from Mr HUME. He

mentioned this to afford the honourable member an opportunity of stating, whether Mr Beaumont's statement was correct.

"Mr Hume observed, that he never had seen the correspondence, nor was it ever in his possession, and, as a matter of course, it could not emanate from him. All he knew of Mr Beaumont was, that he had presented a petition which he had brought to him from the people of colour in Jamaica."

In the Glasgow Courier of March 4th, 1828, the following observations were made by me on the preceding conversation ;

"A conversation, short, but of some interest, took place in the House of Commons between Mr Horton and Mr Hume, when the former stated, that Mr Beaumont had published, in a public journal in Jamaica, some private and confidential correspondence betwixt Lord Bathurst and the Duke of Manchester upon colonial subjects, which Mr Beaumont stated he had obtained from Mr Hume. This Mr Hume denies, and says that he never saw the correspondence in question. By whatever means Mr Beaumont got possession of the correspondence, is immaterial; but nothing could be more unwarrantable and imprudent than the publication of it by him, knowing, as he must have known, that the correspondence was confidential," &c.

I leave the public to judge what cause of offence I had given to either Mr Beaumont or Mr Stephen in the preceding observations; and with this remark I leave the latter gentleman to consider what the world will think of him for dedicating and presenting a falsehood to our gracious Sovereign.

Mr Stephen, Preface, page 16, tells

us," It is not true, then, that zeal for Christianity, or what my opponents call enthusiasm in religion, made me an enemy to slavery. It would be much nearer the truth, for certain reasons, to say, that this enmity made me a Christian."

I for one, my Lord, disclaim ever having by such a charge done either Mr Stephen or Christianity such injustice. "Certain reasons" always appeared to me to excite his inveterate hostility to the colonies. Some of these may be found in the following list of places and salaries which this gentleman, and his family and relatives, receive from the public purse:

"James Stephen, senior, Master in Chancery,

Income.

L.3600

2000

800

2000

1000

800

500

John Stephen, jun. Commissioner

Crown Lands, ditto,

Court, ditto,

L. 13,700

The words " mercenary,' "" hired,"

pensioned," &c., should never therefore escape Mr Stephen's lips, nor the lips of any of his family. They ought not to use such weapons. If they have no other and better arguments to adduce against an opponent, they ought to relinquish the contest.

Mr Stephen knows that I have no pension from any quarter. I challenge him to contradict me by producing one. My pension, my Lord, is the persecutions and the calumnies of himself and his associates. With regard to "instructions," I dare him, and I defy him, to bring forward the

assembly, the planter, or the individual, either abroad or at home, who instructs or advises me, or who ever dared either to instruct or to advise me, what to write on colonial subjects. The praise, or the reproach of my writings in defence of the Colonies, are my own. I knew no adviser, instigator, instructor, or assistant in the cause.

By dislocating sentences, and suppressing words, Mr Stephen ekes out pages. I adduce the following as a specimen. Quoting a statement, originally I believe, from his own pen, viz." The slaves, whether male or female, are driven to hard labour by the impulse of the cart-whip ;" he connects with this, part of a sentence written by me in refutation, thus:-"This is either wholly false, or the facts are misrepresented. The slaves are not driven to work," &c.; and then, says he, the extract referred to " goes on as in my former quotation." This "former quotation," in page 120, of his work, runs thus: "The persons called drivers, so far from driving them to the field, leave their houses and reach the places where they are to work, at least half an hour before a single negro approaches the place," and clinging to the subject dislocated, Mr Stephen, p. 196, further adds regarding this refutation; "but he does not stop here: he has the inconceivable confidence to add, wherever they go, or whatever they do, he goes before them, and stands before them, and not behind them; nor dare he use a whip to any one unless he is commanded.'

The quotation, thus mangled and dislocated, Mr Stephen, moreover, introduces with the assertion, that it was in my work" ushered in with the following exclamation,"-" when will the anti-colonial party tell truth? Never, while they can substitute falsehood or misrepresentation for it!"

Now, my Lord, the preceding "exclamation" did not usher in the quotation particularly referred to, but concluded observations upon, and a refutation of, the huge anti-colonial

falsehood, that the 800,000 slaves in the West India colonies were branded with red-hot irons!

To understand Mr Stephen's special-pleading practice more clearly, however, I lay before your Lordship entire the accusation and the refutation alluded to, thus:

Anti-colonist," The slaves, whether male or female, are driven to hard labour by the impulse of the cart-whip, for the sole benefit of their owners, from whom they receive no wages; and this labour is continued (with certain intermissions for breakfast and dinner) from morning to night throughout the year."

To this my answer, page 256,

was:

"This is either wholly false, or else the facts are misrepresented. The slaves are not driven to their work; THE WHIP IS ONLY

USED TO PUNISH THEM WHEN THEY NEGLECT THEIR DUTY OR COMMIT A CRIME;

the persons called drivers, so far from driving them to the field, leave their houses and reach the places where they are to work, at least half an hour before a single negro turns out or approaches the place. Wherever they go, and whatever they are about, he goes before them, and stands before them, nor dare he use the whip to any one unless he is commanded. The master indeed gives his slave no wages, in that acceptation of the word; but he gives him better, what the slave can less easily abuse, viz.: clothing, food, a house, utensils for it, lands to cultivate for himself, implements to cultivate his own fields; he protects and supports him in sickness, infirmity, and old age; good or bad times make no difference to him, he is still provided for ; justice is obtained for him without a fee, and he has NO TAXES TO PAY. Are these things nothing? Are they not wages such as millions of free men cannot possibly obtain ? Why should those undeniable truths be so disengenuously concealed ?"

This was my reply and refutation. Mr Stephen has refuted no part of it; but your Lordship will observe, that he has, with "inconceivable confidence," suppressed the chief point at issue, in the words in capitals, viz. "The whip is only used to punish them when they neglect their duty or commit a crime." Suppressing this, omitting a portion of what he had written, and withholding above three-fourths of my refutation, which bore on his whole charge, he makes it appear as if the part he quotes were the whole, and that whole di

rected against all, instead of being, as he makes it, directed against a fraction of his. What dishonesty! Moreover, because a black man is intrusted with a whip for the purposes above mentioned, is this country to be told, that every slave is driven to his work and at his work? Why, my lord, we may with equal propriety British sailors are driven to their be told, that British soldiers and duty and at their duty-to exercise and to battle, by" the cat o' nine tails” and halberds, because these weapons are, under superior authority, used to designate authority, and to punish offences, or any neglect of duty ́ amongst them.

The Report of the Legislature of St Vincent's, adduced by Mr Stephen, confirms my statement, that no driver is permitted to use the whip, unless he is commanded. To refute this, Mr Stephen, with special-pleading sophistry, quotes (p. 199) a section of the St Vincent's Slave law, thus:

"That in order to restrain arbitrary punishment, no slave on any plantation or estate shall receive more than ten stripes at one time, and for one offence, unless the owner, attorney, guardian, executor, admi nistrator, or manager of such plantation or estate, having such slave under his care, shall be present."

Mr Stephen knows, and must know, that there is still one subordinate authority on every estate, besides those above enumerated, namely, the "overseer," as he is called in the Windward Islands, and in Jamaica "book-keeper," a white man; and it is his authority, not the authority of the driver, which is limited to ten stripes. There is, therefore, no error or contradiction on the part of either the Legislature of St Vincent's, or your humble servant.

But the contradiction already alluded to extended to the latter clause of the anti-colonial accusation, thus:--

"The nature of this labour, and whe

6

ther it was hard labour' or not, will best be ascertained by laying fully before the reader a plain and undeniable statement."

"The days and nights in our West India islands are so nearly equal, that the difference is not worth taking into account, and may be taken at twelve hours each. The negroes are called to their work in the morning, on some estates by a bell, on some by the blow