As a further and conclusive proof that compulsory manumission was not, even by ministers themselves, deemed to be implied in the Resolutions proposed by Mr. Canning, but that it was an after-thought of their own, we have the direct and decisive testimony of Lord Bathurst. In his Lordship’s circular despatch to the Governors of Colonies having local legislatures, dated 9th July, 1823, and consequently near two months after these Resolutions were passed, and when it is presumed that the executive government had determined on the details of such measures as were to be adopted in furtherance of those Resolutions, Lord Bathurst gives a comprehensive sketch of the various amendments required in the colonial laws. “The next subject,” says his Lordship, “to which I must draw your attention, is the manumission of slaves.” After expressing his satisfaction, that the practice of impeding manumission by the exaction of a heavy fine or tax has been discontinued, his Lordship anticipates a further facilitation to manumissions, by the concurrence of each colonial legislature in the final repeal of all such charges, including all official fees. His Lordship thus appears to consider the _expense_ of obtaining emancipation, as the chief obstacle which it was incumbent upon the colonial legislatures to remove. He then proceeds to specify all the remaining obstacles which he thinks ought to be removed. “The first obstacle to manumission arises from the apprehension of this being resorted to by the owner for the purpose of relieving himself from the burden of maintaining infirm or aged slaves.—A second obstacle to manumission seems to arise from a presumed legal difficulty, in regard to the incapability of a slave to make contracts.—A third, and much more serious obstacle arises out of the legal limitations to property in slaves; as in cases of entail, family-settlement, or mortgage.—A difficulty analogous to this arises out of doubtful or disputable titles.” How were these difficulties to be obviated? By the _compulsory_ enactments of the Trinidad order in council? No such thing. They were not even contemplated. “To remove,” says his Lordship, “all the preceding obstacles to manumission, you will therefore propose to the legislature of your colony to pass a law to the following effect:—Permanent commissioners should be appointed, who (on application being made by, or on behalf of, any slave, _with his master’s consent_) should ascertain the names,” &c. &c. Parl. Pap. _Sess._ 1824. p. 10.