Page images
PDF
EPUB

meditation, and in the commemorative symbols of his body broken, and his blood shed, for our transgressions. He waits to reveal himself to us spiritually as we journey on the pilgrimage of life; and to fill our hearts with joy and peace in believing. Whence then arises the defect? It is in ourselves. We are not, like these two disciples, making the things that belong to our eternal peace the subject of our earnest inquiry. We are not, like them, eager to receive, and to treasure up the instructions of the Saviour. We are not like them anxious to retain his presence we do not prefer Him to every other guest. Our hearts go after our idols; sin, and self, and the world engross our affections; the concerns of eternity are not our highest object, the service of God is not our greatest delight. Our religion is cold or superficial; perhaps hypocritical and insincere. Our life is not consistent with our professions: we call ourselves Christians, but are not true followers of Christ. We feel not the burden of our sins to be intolerable; we are not seeking deliverance from their power, or pardon from their guilt. Hence we hear with formal indifference truths which, rightly received, would cause our hearts to glow with thankfulness and admiration. Had the whole of the conversation which has rendered for ever memorable the obscure village of Emmaus been recorded, it would, in such a frame of mind, have appeared utterly uninteresting. Indeed, we have read or heard the substance of this conversation almost times without number, in every part of God's word, and in the discourses of his ministers; but when did themes like these cause our hearts to burn within us? Truly, then, there is a grievous defect in the state of our understanding and affections; and, if so, let us begin honestly to examine into the true cause of our religious indifference. Let us also diligently use the means appointed by God for enlightening the judgment and influencing the heart. Let

us read his word; let us humbly pray for the instructions of his Holy Spirit; let us meditate on what we read, and mix faith and love with our meditations; let us aim to practise what we know, and endeavour daily to increase our knowledge; let us strive to live a life of faith upon the Son of God, trusting in his sacrifice for pardon, following his blessed example, walking in the light of his countenance, and gratefully hoping to be with Him for ever in heaven. Then will our religion be infinitely more than a name or form; then will our hearts often burn within us by the way; and, even in our deepest depressions, we shall have a source of hope and satisfaction which no earthly enjoyments can bestow.

Tothe Editorofthe Christian Observer, YOUR correspondent, " A Scriptural Loyalist," has certainly established the anachronism in the application of Rom. xiii. 1-7, which he has pointed out in your Number for September; and the argument a fortiori, must consequently be deemed false. But that anachronism does not lower the duty of obedience to rulers and magistrates, especially when the circumstances are weighed under which passages of a similar import were written. Of these passages it may suffice to mention two; namely, first, Titus iii. 1, which St. Paul wrote in the year sixty-four, in the very worst part of Nero's reign, and between his first and second imprisonments at Rome; and, secondly, 1 Peter ii. 13-17, which St. Peter is reckoned to have written in the same year sixty-four, and, what is more to the point, from Rome: where, on the very spot, he was every day hearing of and beholding the atrocities of the abandoned emperor Nero; and where he himself was every day in jeopardy of his life, which was at length sacrificed by that monster of cruelty. Both the above passages were written in the very year that multitudes

of Christians, (and we know how dear the church of God was to the Apostles,) fell victims to the persecution raised by Nero to avert from himself the odium of setting fire to

the imperial city. The doctrine it were superfluous to discuss; it is enough to state facts, which may safely be left to speak for themselves.

A TRUE PATRIOT

MISCELLANEOUS.

NEGRO SLAVERY. -No. IV.

REV. G. W. BRIDGES ON THE EFFECTS OF MANUMISSION.

THE Conclusion to which we came, in our last paper, respecting the favourable effects of manumission on the character and habits of the slaves, has been disputed by a clergyman of Jamaica, the Rev. G. W. Bridges, the rector of Manchester parish, who has lately published a pamphlet on the subject, entitled "A Voice from Jamaica, in Reply to W. Wilberforce, Esq." This Christian minister takes great pains to convince his readers of the unparalleled blessings of West-Indian slavery, as compared with the evils of liberty. In the prosecution of this humane and honourable task, he introduces the following observations :—

"Want is unknown to the slaves in these isles; while the toils of the British labourer, the sweat of whose care-worn brow has hardly gained a scanty subsistence for his craving children, too often terminate in the long-dreaded horrors of the parish poor-house. It is the free Negro and Coloured population of these colonies that slothful race, living without labour or means; dependent alone upon the spontaneous production of a grateful soil; and, in its worst features, resembling the English husbandmen-which merit your commiseration and should elicit your sympathy. Their habits of life are such, that while the slave is protected, and his necessities administered to in age or incapacity, they are exposed, under such circumstances, and without resource, to all the want and misery which

close a life of unrestrained indolence, apathy, and vice."-Voice from Jamaica, p. 39.

The misrepresentations of this writer on the subject of the marriage of slaves in Jamaica have been fully exposed in other publications*.

[ocr errors]

* Addressing Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Bridges observes-" In p. 17 of your ‘Appeal, you confidently make an assertion, which it happily falls peculiarly within my province to reply to, upon the authority of that character beneath which I claim credit for my affirmations. You state, that no attempts have been made to inthe Christian institution of marriage.' troduce among them (the Negro slaves) Now, sir, this I positively contradict, by stating that I have myself married one hundred and eighty-seven couples of Negro slaves, in my own parish, within the last two years, all of whom were encouraged by their owners to marry; and that the anxious wish at present expressed by them tion, we hail as one of the first fruits of to bind themselves by this sacred instituthe dispensation of Christian principles. In another parish, St. Thomas in the East, I have reason to know that there have been three times that number married during the incumbency of the present rector, Mr. Trew; and, though not speaking from numerical information, I can safely affirm, that the labours of the clergy been equally active, and doubtless crowned in the remaining nineteen parishes have with the same success." p. 22.

Such is the imposing statement of the Rev. Mr. Bridges. It ill agrees, however, with the official returns on this subject, which have been received from Jamaica.

On the 14th of last May there were laid on the table of the House of Commons returns from Jamaica, which have These returns are contained in a dispatch been printed by order of the House. of the Governor, the Duke of Manchester, dated 17th March, 1823. One of them is entitled "AReturn of the Number of Mar

[ocr errors]

Our object at present is to shew above extract are still less entitled that the statements contained in the to confidence. He there tells us,

riages legally solemnized between Slaves, and also between free Black or Coloured People, since the 1st of January, 1808, distinguishing each year." On looking into the return for the parish of Manchester (p. 130), we find that, from 1808 to 1819 inclusive, not a single marriage is recorded as having taken place in that parish. In 1820, five marriages are stated to have taken place; and in 1821, three, but in 1822 none. So that, in the parish of Manchester, during fourteen entire years, eight marriages only, according to the official accounts, had been solemnized. Mr. Bridges, however, says, that within the last two years he had married 187 couple. Now, as only three of these had been married in the two years preceding March, 1823, (the date of the returns), the remaining 184 must have been married between that period and the transmission of Mr. Bridges's "Voice" to this country. What can have given birth to this new and ardent zeal for the extension of marriages? Was it owing to the suggestions of Mr. Wilberforce's pamphlet, which had just then made its appearance in Jamaica? and were these 184 marriages so suddenly got up and celebrated in order to furnish a convenient practical refutation of his statements? This very singular circumstance requires, of course, some explanation.

We perceive that the Rev. Mr. Bridges before he was removed to the parish of Manchester, had been rector of St. Dorothy's. The return of marriages of slaves in that parish is as follows:-1808 to 1819 none; and only one in each of the succeeding three years.

There are several other parishes in which, notwithstanding Mr. Bridges's commendation of their zeal and activity in promoting the marriages of slaves, the incumbents, contrary to his hope, seem to have been, unhappily, very unsuccessful.

In St. John's parish there has been one marriage in fourteen years; in St. Thomas's in the Vale, none; in Vere, one; in Clarendon, two; in St. Ann's, none; in St. Elizabeth's, none; in St. James's, two; in Hanover, none; in Falmouth, one; in Port Royal, two; and from the parishes of St. Catherine and Westmorland there are no returns at all. Besides this, the parish of St. George exhibits the number of 47 marriages of slaves in fourteen years; St. Mary's, 36; Portland, 27; St.

[ocr errors]

David's, 102; St. Andrew's, 405; St. Thomas's in the East, 1,612; and Kingston, 1,648. But here it is impossible not to remark, that it is only in those parishes of the island where there are establishments of Wesleyan Methodist Missionaries that marriages take place even to this small extent: we say small extent, because it is to be recollected, that the average slave population of each of these parishes is upwards of 16,000.

The circumstance, that of 3,596 marriages, said to have taken place in Jamaica in fourteen years, 3,467 were celebrated in the four last mentioned parishes, where the Methodists have established themselves, unavoidably leads to a suspicion that many of the marriages here enumerated as legal marriages, may refer to those domestic engagements which the Methodist Missionaries oblige their converts to contract when they enter into their society. It is not easy in any other way to account for the remarkable difference in the returns from those parishes, as compared with the rest of the island. Now, it is well known, that such engagements are in no way legally binding on the parties. They are admitted, by the Methodists themselves, not to be so. And even with respect to the 187 marriages which Mr. Bridges states himself to have solemnized within the preceding two years (184 of which must have been compressed into the little month which preceded the emission of his pamphlet), it would be important to know from him what connubial rights his benediction has conferred. Does it prevent a master from separating a husband and wife, at his pleasure, by sale or transfer? Does it legally bind the husband to the wife, and the wife to the husband, and give a right of action against the violators of his domestic peace? The fact, we believe, will be found to be, that it confers, in the present state of the slave laws of the West Indies, no rights of any kind, and that it is a marriage only in name.

Such is the clear inference to be deduced from a careful inspection of the whole of the returns lately made to the House of Commons from the West-India Colonies on this subject, and ordered to be printed on the 4th of March last. The return of marriages of slaves from all the colonies, excepting Jamaica and Trinidad, is nil. In Trinidad, three are returned to have taken place in fourteen years And, lest we should be in doubt as to the real

that the free Black and Coloured population of Jamaica-amount

state of the case, this return of nil is accompanied by several very ingenious explanations.

The Rev. Mr. Nash, of Grenada, writes thus: "The legal solemnization of marriage between slaves is a thing unheard of." And then he gives his reasons for thinking that they do better not to marry :"Their affection for each other," he says, "if affection it can be called, is capricious and short-lived; restraint would hasten its extinction; and unity without harmony is mutual torment."-See the Papers, p. 14.

The Rev. Mr. Macmahon, during a ministry of thirty-seven years, in several islands, never heard of such a thing as the marriage of slaves. (p. 15.)

The clergymen of Antigua, Demerara, and the Bahamas, write in a similar strain. • Nay, one of them, the Rev. Mr. Harman, distinctly affirms that there is no such thing as a marriage of slaves recorded in Antigua; such marriages "having been invariably considered as illegal.' (p. 51.) After this statement, we think it will be allowed that Mr. Wilberforce did not greatly misrepresent the real state of things in the West Indies, when he affirmed the absence of the marriage tie among them.

But the exertions of Mr. Bridges have not been confined to the marriages of slaves. During my residence in the parish," he says, "I have actually baptized 9,413 Negro slaves." Now Mr. Bridges, when he stated this fact, had been only two or three years the rector of the parish of Manchester, in which no church had been erected until after his appointment.

It is a just and striking remark of Mr. Barhem, himself a large West-India proprietor, that among the slaves "nothing could be easier than to introduce Christianity in name; as, for the most insignificant reward, they would universally accept baptism;" but that "it were better they should remain as they are, than that a people whose religion, if indeed it can be called such at all, continuing in fact as it is, should be regarded as Christian.". See Mr. Barham's pamphlet.

Sir George Rose, another large WestIndia proprietor, states, in a pamphlet which he has published, that, with respect to baptism, we ought to put it entirely out of our calculation, where it has not been attended by Christian instruction, and the amendment of the Neophyte. On the largest and best of his estates in Jamaica, his slaves, though they had been baptized,

ing in number to upwards of 30,000, and many of whom, as we

he found to be "UTTERLY without religion, ignorant, disorderly, and dishonest." Various clerical authorities might be adduced to the same effect.

cost.

And yet, in the face of these testimonies, what is it, in the case of Mr. Bridges, which we are called to contemplate? He was presented to a parish, the ecclesiastical duties of which he has to perform singly. Besides its population of White and Free Coloured inhabitants, which has hitherto occupied almost exclusively the pastoral care of West-Indian incumbents, it contained about 16,000 slaves. In less than three years he reports, that of these he has actually baptized 9,413. If we assume these 9,413 to have been also actually converted from Paganism to Christianity, or even to have been taught enough of the fundamental truths of the Gospel to understand the engagements into which they entered, we have here a greater miracle than was exhibited on the day of PenteAnd if they were not converted to Christianity, or if they did not understand the nature of the solemn vow and covenant they were called to make, what a perfect mockery of religion, what a prostitution of the sacred initiatory rite of baptism, is here made the subject of this minister's boast! When he sprinkled them with water, "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," and received them "into the congregation of Christ's flock," did he make them promise "to renounce the carnal desires of the flesh;" and "to keep God's holy will and commandments, and to walk in the same all the days of their life?" If he did, we would ask again, whether he was not conscious at the time, that these engagements, with respect to almost all his Neophytes, were words without a meaning? How many of his 9,413 converts were actually living at the time, and have continued since to live, in a state of lawless concubinage, indulging, day by day, without restraint, instead of renouncing, "the carnal desires of the flesh?" Out of 16,000 slaves, by his own account, he had married only 187 couple. In what state were all the rest of those persons living whom he pronounced, on their baptism, to be " regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's church," and for whom he solemnly gave "thanks to Almighty God," as such-praying too "that they may lead the rest of their life according to this beginning?” Dogs such

shall shew, are possessed of consider- any full, valuable, and adequate

able property-live, most strangely, "WITHOUT LABOUR AND MEANS;" and that "they depend ALONE on the spontaneous productions of a grateful soil." There is here surely some exaggeration, to say the least, on the part of the Reverend author. They are also, he tells us, a "slothful race," "exposed, without re source, to all the want and misery which close a life of unrestrained indolence, apathy, and vice."

But, would it not have been a Christian act in Mr. Bridges, while he was thus stigmatising that part of his flock which consists of free Coloured persons, to have pointed out the causes which had contributed to their degradation and poverty? Was it quite fair towards them, was it fair even to his White parishioners, to pass wholly unnoticed the civil disabilities under which they had long laboured and indeed still continue to labour? Was he aware, and if he was not, what claim has he to be heard on this subject?—that from the year 1761 until the year 1813, it was the law of Jamaica, with a view expressly to maintain "the distinction requisite and absolutely necessary to be kept up in this island between White persons, and Negroes and their issue and offspring," that all Negroes and Mulattoes, &c. should be incapacitated from purchasing or inheriting any real or personal property, except under the following provisos; namely

"Provided always that nothing in this act shall extend to any gifts or grants hereafter to be made for a transaction require a comment? Is not this indeed to play the farce of Christianity? Then, as to keeping God's commandments, what shall we say to the Fourth? Has the Sunday ceased to be the market-day, or a day of labour to these baptized Negroes? And when they come really to understand the requisitions of the Christian covenant, the repentance, faith, and new obedience, which our church requires of all adults before they are admitted to baptism, what must they think of the fidelity of their pastor?

considerations, really and bona fide paid by such Negro, Mulatto, or other person, not born in lawful wedlock, and being deemed a Mu latto, out of their own proper monies and effects, so as the whole of all such gifts, grants, and purchases, from all and every the grantors, given and granted to, and purchased by, such Negro, Mulatto, or other person not born in lawful wedlock, shall not, in the whole, exceed the value of the sum of 2000l. in reality."

"Provided likewise, that it shall and may be lawful for such Negro, &c. to receive and take any lands, Negroes, Mulatto, or other Slaves, cattle, stock, money, or other estate, real, or personal, in this island, so that the value and amount of such land, &c. given, granted, and by all and every the donors and testators, being White persons, exceed not the snm of 2000l. in the whole to any one person."

Until the same year, 1813, it was also unlawful for any free Negro or Person of Colour, even to navigate a vessel owned by himself, plying along the coast of the island for hire.

Until the same year every such person holding or hiring slaves was obliged to engage one or more White persons, serving in the militia, according to the number of his slaves; or to pay certain sums of money, in case the number of such persons should be deficient.

Until the same year no free Negro or Mulatto could supply such deficiency, either for himself or for any other free Negro or Mulatto.

Until the same year no free Negro or Mulatto could be admitted as a witness, in any court of justice, in a cause in which a White person was a party.

the Legislature of Jamaica passed In that year, but not till then, acts relaxing the rigour of these cruel restrictions; abolishing the oppressive regulations with respect to the acquisition of property by

« PreviousContinue »