All the apologists of the measure seem, in their very tone, to be aware of the great degree of responsibility to be incurred in carrying it into effect; and hence there is a laboured attempt to show, that it is strictly conformable with the first proceedings of parliament, and with the resolutions of 1823. The West Indians are told, “in addition to your ignorance and imbecility, there will be the charge of shameful inconsistency to bring against you, if you now oppose our measures. You concurred unanimously in Mr. Canning’s resolutions; compulsory manumission is distinctly contemplated by those resolutions; and can you now propose to retract the assent given to them by your former votes.” The West India members had little right to expect that such an accusation would ever be brought against them. In every stage of the proceedings, the whisper was incessantly reiterated in the ear of His Majesty’s ministers—“Adhere honestly to your own resolutions—for the sake of justice we call upon you, not to court a vulgar and transient popularity at our expense!” And why was it that the resolutions were thus implicitly relied on? Not from any opinion that declarations of separate branches of the legislature could affect the rights of individuals resting on the statute-laws of the realm, but, because the parliamentary resolution contained a principle of cautious and practical legislation, and authorised the belief that, at each stage of procedure, careful examination and scrutiny would precede the adoption of measures which could be alleged, by any party concerned, to infringe their rights or interests. When, subsequently, statements were made in the House of Commons, that government was departing from this principle, in enforcing compulsory manumission, neither Mr. Canning, nor Mr. Wilmot Horton, thought proper openly to attempt an explicit refutation. What is the commentary? Matters are now becoming more critical, and the Executive resort to the plea of acting only upon the declared will of the legislature in their justification. Let us give them every advantage. Let us discuss the propriety of compulsory manumission, as it agrees with the resolutions of parliament; and if we succeed in our endeavours, we shall command the more attention, from meeting our antagonists on the ground they have themselves selected. CHAPTER II. COMPULSORY MANUMISSION CONTRARY TO THE SPIRIT OF THE RESOLUTIONS OF PARLIAMENT. The first of these often-quoted Resolutions declares, “That it is expedient to adopt effectual and decisive measures for AMELIORATING the condition of the slave population in His Majesty’s colonies.”