The colonial proprietors resident in Great Britain felt little
sympathy, either with the colonial legislatures, or with those
resident in the colonies. This want of sympathy may be attributed
to a peculiarity which distinguished the planters of British from
those of other European colonies. The latter considered the colony
in which they resided as their home. The former regarded their
residence in it as temporary. They looked to the parent state as
their only home, and all their acquisitions were made with a view to
enjoyment in that home. This feeling accompanied them to England.
It was imbibed by their families and their descendants. The colony,
which had been the source of their wealth and rank, was not, as
she ought to have been, the object of their grateful affection.
They regarded with indifference her institutions, her legislature,
her resident community. From this want of sympathy, or from the
want of requisite information, they made no effort to remove the
unfavourable impressions with which the executive Government and
the Assemblies regarded each other, or to promote the establishment
of their relations in mutual conciliation and confidence.
Another cause operated very powerfully in exciting a strong
prejudice against the inhabitants of our West Indian colonies. The
feeling which was naturally entertained against the slave trade and
slave colonies was transferred to the resident colonists, and almost
exclusively to them. By a numerous and powerful party, slavery had
been contemplated in itself, and in the relations and interests
which it had created, and its abolition had been endeavoured to be
effected as if it were the crime of the colonies _exclusively_. It
was forgotten "that it was," to use the language of Lord Stowel,
"in a peculiar manner the crime of England, where it had been
instituted, fostered, and encouraged, even to an excess which some
of the colonies in vain endeavoured to restrain." Besides the acts
passed by the legislatures of Pennsylvania and South Carolina, when
those were British colonies, we find that when the Assembly of
Jamaica, in 1765, was passing an act to restrain the importation
of slaves into the colony, the governor of Jamaica informed the
Assembly of that island, that, consistently with his instructions,
he could not give his assent to a bill for that purpose, which had
then been read twice. In 1774, the Jamaica Assembly attempted to
prevent the further importation, by an increase of duties thereon,
and for this purpose passed two acts. The merchants of Bristol and
Liverpool petitioned against their allowance. The Board of Trade
made a report against them. The agent of Jamaica was heard against
that report; but, upon the recommendation of the Privy Council,
the acts were disallowed, and the disallowance was accompanied
by an instruction to the governor, dated 28th February 1775, by
which he was prohibited, "upon pain of being removed from his
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account