From this impressive circumstance may also be inferred the value of West Indian testimony, when given in favour of West Indian humanity. Mr. COLBECK, for example, would naturally enough be spoken of as a man of humanity by his West Indian brethren, and they would probably be sincere in giving him that praise. But who is this man of humanity? It is one who, hearing that a fellow-creature has been cruelly and wantonly murdered, goes away SATISFIED, because he himself has sustained no pecuniary loss by the murder! In truth, the moral perceptions and feelings which prevail in that quarter of the globe, are wholly different from those which are found on this side of the Atlantic. An exception may, indeed, be made in favour of a few men of enlightened minds; but the remark is just as applied to the bulk of the community—_the people_, whose _prejudices_ are stated by Lord SEAFORTH to be so horribly _absurd_, as to resist all measures for remedying this shocking state of society. We shall doubtless hear it argued on the present as on former occasions, when similar barbarities have been incontestably proved, that “individual instances of cruelty, like those which have now been produced, are no proofs of general inhumanity. Instances, of, at least, equal atrocity, might be collected from the annals of the Old Bailey. But how very unjust would it be to regard these as exhibiting a fair view of the English character?” There is, however, a remarkable defect in the analogy which is here attempted to be established; a defect which seems fatal to the argument. In this happy country, when we hear that crimes have been perpetrated, we hear also that they have been punished: we have at least the satisfaction of knowing, that no practicable means are left unattempted for securing the criminals, and bringing them to justice. But is this the case in Barbadoes? We hear of great crimes indeed; but we hear at the same time of their _impunity_. The criminals are not under the necessity of endeavouring to elude detection, or of screening themselves from prosecution by concealment: they even talk of their crimes with a shocking indifference. The laws themselves conspire to defeat the ends of justice. We find, not the _lawless_ part of the community, but the legislative assembly of the island, sanctioning the perpetration of the foulest murders, by their refusal to recognise murder as a felonious act. We find even officers of the Crown neglecting the obvious duty of instituting a legal inquest into these murders. To what is this neglect to be attributed? To the contagious influence of those _prejudices_, and of that savage indifference to Negro life, which evidently pervade the _people_ at large? Or is it to be accounted for on the ground that the law has actually deprived His Majesty’s Attorney General, and His Majesty’s Coroner, of the constitutional power of instituting such an inquest? In either case our colonial system will stand justly chargeable, not