for the same:
but if any person shall _wantonly_ or _cruelly_ kill his own slave, he
shall pay the treasury 15 l." And here let us remark, that, when Lord
Seaforth, governor of Barbadoes, proposed, so lately as in 1802, the
repeal of this bloody law, the Legislature of that island rejected the
proposition with indignation. Nay, the very proposal to repeal it so
stirred up at the time the bad passions of many, that several brutal
murders of slaves were committed in consequence; and it was not till two
or three years afterwards that the governor had influence enough to get
the law repealed. Let the West Indians then talk no more of their
_charters_; for in consequence of having legislated upon principles,
which are at variance with those upon which the laws of England are
founded, they have _forfeited them all_. The mother country has
therefore a right to withdraw these charters whenever she pleases, and
to substitute such others as she may think proper. And here let it be
observed also, that the right of the West Indians to make any laws at
all for their own islands being founded upon their charters, and upon
these alone, and the laws relating to the slaves being contrary to what
such charters prescribe, the _slavery itself_, that is, the daily living
practice with respect to slaves under such laws, _is illegal_ and _may
be done away_. But if so, all our West Indian slaves are, without
exception, unlawfully held in bondage. There is no master, who has a
legal title to any of them. This assertion may appear strange and
extravagant to many; but it does not follow on that account that it is
the less true. It is an assertion, which has been made by a West Indian
proprietor himself. Mr. Steele[4], before quoted, furnishes us with what
passed at the meeting of the Society of Arts in Barbadoes at their
committee-room in August 1785, when the following question was in the
order of the day: "Is there any law written, or printed, by which a
proprietor can prove his title to his slave under or conformable to the
laws of England?" And "Why, (immediately said one of the members,) why
conformable to the laws of England? Will not the courts in England admit
such proof as is authorized by _our slave laws_?"--"I apprehend not,
(answered a second,) unless we can show that _our slave laws_ (according
to the limitations of the charter) are _not_ repugnant to the laws of
England."--The same gentleman resumed: "Does the original purchaser of
a