Lord Bathurst and the writer of the “Remarks” consider the means of fair compensation for the fixed capital to be secured, as appears in the following extract from his Lordship’s despatch:— “If by these regulations an adequate compensation be not secured to the owner, it must either be because the persons who are authorised to decide upon the amount are not likely to be fit or fair arbitrators, or because there are restrictions which will prevent the arbitrators from the free exercise of their judgment. Now it must be admitted nothing can be fairer than the proposed selection of arbitrators in the Trinidad Order: viz., that in the event of the owner and the slave not agreeing on the price of the slave’s manumission, the owner should appoint one, the protector of slaves another, and that an umpire should be appointed by the chief judge. It is clear that an arbitration on such principle would protect the interests of the owner, and if there were any objection it would be that the bias was in his favour. As to restrictions or limitations, there are none to obstruct the free exercise of their judgment.” To this it may, in the first place, be replied, that the principle of appraisement in its practical operation supposes the price of slaves to continue to be regulated in the West India colonies by competition in the market, like commodities in commerce. Before we go further, then, let us examine how West India property stands at present. The following are the Gazette average prices of sugar for the last seven years: viz., 1820 35_s._ 0_d._ 1821 31 0 1822 29 4½ 1823 34 6 1824 30 11½ 1825 38 7¼ 1826 35 6½