ESCHEATED SLAVES. RETURN to an Address of the Honourable The House of Commons, AN ACCOUNT of the final Disposal of the SLAVES ESCHEATED to The CROWN in the Colonies of the West Indies, since 1st January 1821, and whose Cases have been referred to the Decision of His Majesty's Government. Colonial Department, HOWICK. Ordered, by The House of Commons, to be Printed, No. SCHEDULE. 1.-Copy of a Letter from R. W. Horton, Esq. to Geo. Harrison, Esq.; dated Downing-street, 31st August 1823; 1 Enclosure 2.-Copy of a Letter from R. W. Horton, Esq. to Geo. Harrison, Esq.; dated p. 3 - p. 5 p. 6 4.--Copy of a Letter from R. W. Horton, Esq. to W. Hill, Esq.; dated Downingstreet, 11th November 1826 5.--Copy of a Letter from R. W. Horton, Esq. to W. Hill, Esq.; dated Downingstreet, 24th March 1827 ibid. ibid. · · 6.--Copy of a Letter from W. Hill, Esq. to R. W. Hay, Esq.; dated Treasury, · P. 7 p. 8 8.-Copy of a Letter from the Hon. J. Stewart to R. W. Hay, Esq.; dated Treasury, 14th July 1828 10.-Copy of a Letter from R. W. Hay, Esq. to the Hon. J. Stewart; dated Downing-street, 15th December 1828 11.--Extract of a Letter from Horace Twiss, Esq. to the Hon. J. Stewart; dated Downing-street, 16th August 1830; 1 Enclosure 12.-Extract of a Letter from the Hon. J. Stewart to Horace Twiss, Esq.; dated Treasury, 30th October 1830 13.--Copy of a Letter from Viscount Howick to the Hon. J. Stewart; dated Downing-street, 9th December 1830; 1 Enclosure p. 12 14.-Copy of a Letter from the Hon. J. Stewart to Viscount Howick; dated Treasury, 21st January 1831 15.--Copy of a Circular Despatch from Viscount Howick to the Governors of the several West India Colonies; dated Downing-street, 24th January 1831 ESCHEATED SLAVES. AN ACCOUNT of the final Disposal of the SLAVES ESCHEATED to The No. 1. COPY of a LETTER from R. W. Horton, Esq. to Geo. Harrison, Esq.; dated Downing-street, 31st August 1823; with one Enclosure. SIR, Colonial Office, 31st August, 1823. HE case of Slaves in the West India Islands escheating to the Crown is of ΤΗ very constant occurrence, and has given rise to a question whether, when they have been placed in that situation, their freedom ought not to be granted to them, instead of their being retained or sold as slaves for the benefit of the Crown, or relinquished to persons by whom they would be kept in a state of bondage. This subject was adverted to in a communication from this Department to the Treasury in November 1819, in consequence of an application from the Governor of Dominica for instructions upon this point; and this application has lately been renewed; a reference upon the subject has in consequence been made to the Law Officer of this Department, a copy of whose Report is herewith transmitted; and I am directed to request you will bring the same under the consideration of the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, in order that Lord Bathurst may be informed, previously to his making any general communication, as is therein proposed, to the Governors of the several West India Colonies, whether their Lordships concur in the suggestions offered at the conclusion of the Report, and particularly those that may lead to expense which can only be defrayed under their Lordships authority, and whether they deem it expedient to propose any regulations upon this point. I am, &c. Sir, 30th May 1823. IN obedience to your directions I have perused a despatch addressed by Governor Maxwell to Lord Bathurst, dated at St. Christopher's, 5th Feb. 1823, requesting directions how he is to act in the event of slaves becoming escheated to the Crown within his government; and I have also perused the written statement transmitted to me with that despatch, in which the question is discussed as to the manner in which escheated slaves are to be disposed of, in case it should be deemed right to grant to such persons their liberty: and I am, as I understand, to express the opinion I have formed as to the manner in which such persons can most properly be disposed of, under the existing laws of Great Britain and of the West India Islands. The case of slaves escheating to the Crown is of very frequent occurrence in the West India Islands, because the great body of the free coloured population 30 May 1823. being illegitimate, if any such person dies intestate, and without children born in marriage, the slaves of which he or she may have been seised will of course escheat. The necessity of some general rule on this subject is therefore apparent. I do not presume so far to deviate from my professional province as to refer to any of those general political considerations which might be urged in favour of the enfranchisement of this class of persons. I have however to state, that this mode of dealing with them would be the most consonant to the practice and spirit of the Law of England. In this country the Crown very rarely retains property acquired by escheat for want of heirs, where the party, who but for the illegiti macy of the deceased person, would have been the heir, makes application for a grant of it. In other words, the title founded on natural equity and justice is in such cases preferred to that which is founded merely upon positive law. Now in applying this principle to the case of escheated slaves, the inquiry obviously is, what person, upon the principles of natural justice, has the strongest claim to consideration. The competitors are, on the one hand, the slave himself asking his own freedom, and on the other hand, the party, who but for the illegi. timacy of the deceased intestate, would have been heir, seeking to retain him in bondage. If these contending pretensions are referred to the principles of natural justice, there cannot, as it seems to me, be any hesitation in giving the preference to that of the slave himself. In confirmation of the same conclusion, it may be observed, that by the civil law slaves forfeited to the Emperor, became entitled to freedom, a maxim adopted with the express view of favouring liberty. If it should be adopted as a general rule that slaves escheated to the Crown are to be manumitted, it is obvious that the Crown might qualify the gift of freedom by any restrictions which the welfare of the slave himself, or the safety of society, or a fair consideration for the interest of the disappointed claimant, might require. The practical question to be considered then is, what restrictions could be most prudently and effectually enforced? First.-Among escheated slaves there will occasionally be found persons wholly and permanently incapable, either from age or chronical diseases, of providing for their own support. To such persons, freedom, though a nominal boon, would be a real calamity, unless some means were found for supplying that maintenance which, as long as they continued in a servile condition, the master would have been bound to provide. Persons in this state of infirmity or sickness must, I conceive, when they devolve to the Crown, be regarded as a sort of damnosa hæreditas, an inheritance, however, which it is impossible to repudiate, and which therefore, however burdensome, must unavoidably become a charge on the public revenue. There will be no competition of any private claimant in any case of this nature. Secondly.--Other slaves will escheat to the Crown in a state of infancy, or at an age so early as to postpone for several years the time when they can properly earn their own subsistence. During their very early years, such persons must also become a burthen on the State; but it should seem easy to replace the money expended on their support during infancy, by requiring them, as soon as they may become capable of labour, to work for some definite time upon any public buildings or other undertakings of that nature; if indeed it would not be in reality a more beneficial course for all parties to direct such children to be apprenticed to some trade by which they might afterwards earn their own living. Thirdly. Among escheated slaves some might be found of habits so depraved and vicious as to render the continued coercion of a master essential both to their own welfare and to the peace of society. Others again might be in a state of such entire ignorance as to be utterly unable to use their liberty for their own real advantage. I should conceive that, with reference to both of these descriptions of persons, it might not be inexpedient to retain them in the possession of the Crown as slaves, postponing their enfranchisement until the vicious habits in the one case, or the ignorance in the other, were removed. It is obvious that to this end means ought to be provided at the public expense for their reformation and instruction. Fourthly. Among the slaves escheating to the Crown will be found many persons not included within any of the preceding classes; that is to say, persons neither too old nor too young for labour, free from chronical diseases, exempt from immoral habits, and possessing sufficient knowledge to enable them to earn their their own subsistence. This class of persons may be expected to be numerous, and they are precisely the persons for a grant of whom the natural kindred of the deceased would make application. They might be enfranchised at once without any prejudice to themselves or to society; and the only question respecting them is, whether in such cases any compensation should be made to the disappointed claimant. With reference to that question, I have to observe that four different modes may be suggested of making that compensation. First, the enfranchsed slave might be required, as the price of his manumission, to pay to the claimant some fixed sum of money, to be saved out of his future earnings: or, secondly, the manumission might be delayed for a certain number of years, the claimant during the interval being entitled to the labour of the slave: or, thirdly, the slave might be emancipated at once, but apprenticed for a term of years to the party petitioning: or, finally, the Crown might pay to the disappointed claimant a sum equal to one third or one fourth of the appraised value of the slave. Which then of these modes of compensation is to be preferred? In answering that question, I would observe, first, that to leave the slave to work out a sum of money as the price of his freedom would probably be to give him liberty in name but not in fact, since in the great majority of cases, his daily earnings would not be more than sufficient to purchase his daily bread: and, secondly, that to postpone the gift of freedom for any number of years, would not only be a bad preparative for liberty, but would probably have the effect of setting the slave free at that precise period of life when he would be least able to make provision for himself and his family: and, thirdly, that to apprentice persons in this condition, would, as experience has amply proved, be to recur to a system leading to every species of abuse and inconvenience: and, fourthly, that to call on the Crown to pay out of the public revenue a compensation to the disappointed claimant, would be nothing else than to convert into a loss and prejudice a prerogative which is properly a source of advantage and gain. For these reasons, it appears to me that there is no mode of compensating the disappointed claimant which is not open to great objection. The proper solution of the difficulty therefore seems to be, that it should be made known distinctly throughout the colonies, that the Crown will not in future make any grant of escheated property of this nature. If after such a notice persons permit their slaves to escheat, no one can reasonably complain if a grant of such slaves is refused without compensation.` To sum up, therefore, the whole of the preceding remarks, I should suggest to you, for Lord Bathurst's consideration, the propriety of communicating to the governors of the several West Indian colonies, that in future no grants will be made of escheated slaves; but that all such persons will be emancipated, with the exception, first, of the aged; secondly, of the incurably diseased; thirdly, of the profligate; and, fourthly, of those whose ignorance is such as to prevent their earning their own subsistence. With regard to the two latter classes, I have to suggest that the governors should be instructed to take the best means for their amendment and instruction, and to emancipate them when those means shall have proved effectual. With regard to escheated infant slaves, I think that they should be apprenticed to trades by which they may earn their own living. Finally, I am of opinion that there is no law in force in * any of His Majesty's colonies which could prevent the Crown from acting upon these suggestions, if it should be deemed expedient to adopt them. I have the honour to be, &c. &c. (signed) *Note. The law of Jamaica affords the single exception of which I am aware. Ja' Stephen, jun. J. S. No. 2. COPY of a LETTER from R. W. Horton, Esq. to Geo. Harrison, Esq.; dated Downing-street, 17th January 1825. Sir, Downing-street, 17th January 1825. I AM directed to refer you to my letter of the 31st of August 1823, adverting to a communication made on the 3d of November 1819, and enclosing a Report of |