A letter to James Tobin, Esq. late member of His Majesty's Council in the Island of Nevis. From James Ramsay, ... 1787
Ramsay, James
—— g 2 8 as — N ERIN a * — | | : 4 2 "JJ : 7 ts ws # Ff "f, * ; - WA * 2 1 4 9 * 1 N F. 40 < 5 ; # 4 # . - 4 4 2 * + * 7 bo £ : d 0 : 8 * / 4 " 4 - - 1 7 „ * * / / 782 4 ” z> #0 ↄͤ L 1 1 Ts 5 7 8 4 JAMES TOBIN, ESQ. LATE MEMBER OF HIS MAJESTY's COUNCIL IN THE ISLAND or NEVIS. FROM JAMES RAMSAY, A.M. VICAR or TESTON, 2 L ON D O IM: Printed and Sold by JAMES PHILLIPS, George-Yard, Lombard-Street, 1787. | - dee /. 2 Ai. 94 4. be eee, N WW; At SF 197 . e 2 ADVERTISEMENT. HE following letter was prepared im- mediately on the publication of Mr. Tobin's Rejoinder ; but its appearance was poſtponed in conſequence of the reaſoning that follows. It was obſerved to me, that Mr. Tobin, by acknowledging, in unquali- fied terms, the truth of Capt. Smith's letter, which was written to confirm all my obſer- _ vations on the oppreſſed ſtate of the. negroes in the ſugar colonies, had fully and indiſ- putably eſtabliſhed againſt himſelf, every aſ- ſertion in my original Eſſay, which affected the cauſe of ſlavery. Farther, he had him- ſelf in plain terms given up the cauſe as un- tenable. In the Curſory Remarks claimed by him, he hopes the bleſſings of freedom will be equally diffuſed over the whole face of the globe. He approves of the police and privileges, which the Eflay propoſes for im- proving the condition of ſlaves. In his Re- joinder, he is hurt at being ſuppoſed the champion of ſlavery, or of the oppreſſion of ſlave-holders. He declares himſelf an enemy to negroe ſlavery, and to the unnatural traffick in them. He admits planters to have abuſed their power, and Guinea captains to have been guilty of barbarity. He acknowledges W. Indian flavery to be a gigantic maſs of deformity, which wants to be taken down. He allows negroes to be capable of religious inſtruction. *©* What more it was ſaid, does your Eſſay contend: for? Mr. Tobin argues entirely on your ſide. It is true his Rejoin- der is 4lliberal, virulent, and full of perſonal abuſe, But even in the opinion of his friends a 2 the {| 4 8 2. __— * —— — ö * : OO CO GW Foie ns v7, 7, =, ERIE IN®, - NN J Ry the M. Reviewers, you have fully vindicated yourſelf from every charge; and the wanton attack made on you, both by publick ſlander and private inſinuation, has enabled you to bring forward to your friends ſuch full and particular teſtimony of the innocency of your character, in every point conteſted with you, and of your candour in the execution of your Eſſay, as it is impoſſible for the power of prejudice or malice to effect. You may reſt things on their preſent footing. Good ſenſe muſt at length prevail; and your clients the in- Jured Africans will be redreſſed.“ Againſt this I contended, that Mr. Tobin comes out againſt a poor vicar in the reſpectable character of one of his Majeſty's privy counſellors. He, in his Rejoinder, claims to have his account of W. Indian "ſlavery preferred; becauſe, as he ſays, he had better opportunities than J of +, Boy it. He pretends to anſwer my contradictions of the Curſory Remarks, of which, whether juſtly or not, he aſſumes the compoſition. Under the guiſe of vindicating the preſent ſtate of ſlavery, almoſt in every page, he inſidiouſly turns the diſpute into a virulent perſonal attack, not heſitating to ſtake his character for the truth of every falſ- hood alledged in the St. Kitt's libel againſt me; with a view, by caſting an odium on me, of getting my book and reaſoning in- cluded in the cenſure. I am not only to fit filent under the baſeſt imputations, but I am to leave him in full poſſeſſion of the field, exulting for his imaginary victory on the fide of oppreſſion. Would people read and com- | pare a. 5 pare my reaſoning with that of my adverſaries, J ſhould freely leave matters as they are. But Mr. Tobin's Rejoinder, call on me for an anſwer. I mention them particularly, becauſe they have taken a decided part againſt me, and their opinion carries weight with various people. In the Auguſt Review, this opinion has been given. Mr. Tobin is declared“ to have animadverted on my Reply, in a very able manner, in animated language, though not filled with thoſe ſarcaſtick retorts, and in- vective expreſſions, which they had obſerved and cenſured in my Reply.” This is preceded * in the ſame paragraph by a poſitive cenſure of the general acrimony of my publications. It is a pity that theſe Reviewers did not put the ſame author's different publications into the ſame hands to be reported on, for pre- ſerving uniformity in their deciſions. The man, who reviewed my original Eſſay, and my inquiry into the African trade, was a violent friend of liberty, and he cenſured me ſeverely for my lukewarm manner of treating ſo ani- mating a ſubject. Now, it ſeems in ſome other hands of the ſame body, my publica- tions, theſe not excepted, are become acri- monious. As far as this reſpects my later publications, I had a right to expect a little lenity from them, becauſe the exceſs might be aſcribed to my attention to or miſappre- henſion of their original cenſure. But may I not, without offending againſt the ſpirit of meekneſs, obſerve, that the ſame Review which firſt cenſured me for acrimony, cen- ſured | C ſured the acrimony and perſonalities of the Curſory Remarks claimed by Mr. Tobin, and for theſe having led the way in acrimony. When their hand was in, why did they not obſerve theſe defects in them, as well as in my Reply, eſpecially ſince theſe Remarks by their own confeſſion ſtruck the firſt blow ? By this omiſſion, Mr. Tobin and I are not placed on an equal footing, and I find myſelf obliged once more to come before the pub- lick, to.tell my own tale, or rather as Mr. Tobin contrives it, that of my poor clients, the negroe ſlaves. But I truſt that the cauſe is here brought to ſuch an iſſue, as to admit of no further argument on Mr. Tobin's fide. That lie, which he has ſo genteely given me concerning the ringing of the plantation bell at four o' clock in the morning, is the only anſwer left him to make. Let him once uſe that roundly, and he ſhall have the laſt word. I ſhall embrace this opportunity of repeat- ing my call on government, to inquire how far any poſſible profit to thoſe concerned in the African ſlave trade, is a ſufficient reaſon for our bending the whole force of that branch of commerce to the improvement of the F rench ſugar colony on Hiſpaniola ; which is to them an immenſe fund of trade, and a moſt numerous nurſery for their navy; to which we have nothing to ſet in oppoſition, except the northern fiſheries, which are left to languiſh under the feeble exertions of voluntary contributions, September 12th, 1787. £2. *. P. S. I have juft peruſed in the Monthly Review of October a Criticiſm on the W. Indian Eclogues, lately publiſhed. The Reviewers ſay, „they have every reaſon to believe that writers have greatly exaggerated in their accounts of the cruelties ex- erciſed towards the negroes.” As my writings make a conſiderable part of the publications on- the ſubject, I ſhould have conſidered myſelf as intereſted in this charge, had not the ſame gentle- men in their Reviews of July 1784 and June 1785. acquitted me by name. I now take this oppor- tunity of poſitively declaring, that every publica- tion on the ſubject of ſlavery that has come to my knowledge is greatly within the truth; and in par- ticular that the W. Indian Eclogues are in no cir- cumſtances an exaggerated account of what in my time might frequently have been ſeen by any man of any obſervation. I am ſorry to find that perſons, who have ſo much influence on the public taſte and judgment, ſhould have e eh as in this Review is done, to vindicate oppreſſion and cruelty of the moſt horrid nature by a“ kind of political neceſſity. I truſt ſuch ſcenes will ſhortly be laid before the public, as will force them to retract an opinion that can be formed only from partial and j in- teteſted repreſentations. ER R ATA. P. 4. I. 20. for T. Tobin, read J. Tobin. P. 6. I. 1. dele if ſuch you be. P. 11. I. 18. for reading, read peruſed. P. 21. 1. 24 for inſtances, inſtruments. P. 22. I. 18. dele not. P. 38. In ſpeaking of the mildneſs of Mexican ſlavery, the author throws out the circumitance of their human. ſacrifices; which were quite diſtin, and had no reference to ſlavery, ex- cept when connected with guilt, | T0 JAMES TOBIN, E. LATE MEMBER OF HIS MAJESTY'S COUN= CIL IN THE ISLAND OF NEVIS. S IR, 1 OBSERVE this name prefixed to a pamphlet, called, © A ſhort Rejoinder to the Reverend Mr. Ramſay's Reply,” to him who has aſſumed this name is this anſwer to that Rejoinder addreſſed. The propriety of your publication reſts on' the notice which the Reply takes of a pamphlet, called Curſory Remarks on my Eſſay on Slavery. From the long pauſe'on the ſide of any antagoniſt, whom my friends thought worthy of an anſwer, I began to hope, that, as the management had got into better hands, the conteſt, as far as reſpected me, was determined. Every virulent expreſſion, con- cerning me and my writings, had been exhauſt- ed; every circumſtance of my life had been mali- ciouſly ſifted and expoſed, not as things were, but as my enemies wiſhed to find them. My de- fence had been approved of. It had even forced a favourable verdict from the Monthly Review, in that very number (January 1786) wherein they had thought proper to join in the harſh cenſure of my adverſaries. -I mention this Review, and ſhall frequently appeal to it, as being, in your opinion, ce à valuable periodical publication ;” to whoſe deciſion my enemies cannot object; for it * in | e —— ͤ—2•——ͤ - — c = = (39 few reſpects been indulgent to my writings, and of late not very partial to my cauſe. All was be- fore the public, and I was bound by its award. I have therefore ſome cauſe of chagrin, in being obliged to go over-the ſame ground with you, a new opponent, with whom I have no connection; who yet have contrived ſo to blend your reputa- tation and writings with thoſe of an anonymous libeller, as renders it difficult to do myſelf juſtice, and alſo reſpect your rank and aſſumed character. Of the author of the C. Remarks, I firmly per- ſevere in my firſt opinion. And if truth were ca- pable of addition, this opinion has been ſtrength- ened by the apology which he, depending on the looſe morality of the preſent age, has put into the mouths of his friends, to be uſed in his vindica- tion. Of James Tobin, Eſq. late member of His Majeſty's Council, I wiſh I could think well. So much am I inclined to reſpect the royal mandamus, that it will give me pain to be obliged, in my own defence, to bear hard on one whom the king delighted to honour. In any caſe, I ſhall be care- ful not to go out of the work before me. You are pleaſed to aſſume the credit of the C. Remarks. My conjecture concerning them was, that the hints had been given to ſome hireling, who had dreſſed them up for the public. Before the publication of this Rejoinder, I did not. think ſo unfavourably of mankind, as to ſuppoſe that a man could be found, who, having a reputation to ſupport, with acquaintances of any poſſible cha- rafter, would venture to put his name to the many unfounded affertions contained in that pamphlet ; far leſs that, like a mountebank's zany coming in to confirm his maſter's boaſting, he would, with the author of the C. Remarks (ſee Rejoinder, pag. 91.) repeat and make himſelf anſwerable for all the contradictory contents of the St, Kitt's libel. A man, X 3 A man writing in a fictitious name, from looſe general hints, has no reſpect to modeſty, he is by any means to earn his wages, and frame a taking ſtory. It was therefore charity in me to ſuppoſe this of my unknown antagoniſt, rather than hold him up as a falſifier of facts for the purpoſes of detraction and oppreſſion. Nor, though you affirm p. 11. that © not one of the moſt intimate of your friends ever read a page of the C. Remarks till they were printed,” unleſs the real author's friends have ſadly belied him, do I yet believe myſelf much out in my conjectures of the manner wherein they were given to the publick, My information ſays, that when the true author of the C. Remarks firſt talked of appearing in print, his friend diſſuaded him, but finding him obſtinate, inſiſted that the work ſhould paſs through his hands for correction, which the ſtory ſays it greatly needed. He, dying before the publication of the Rejoinder, left it free for any one to claim the credit of his labours. But not to inſiſt on this (though it be not lightly given to the public, and indeed comes better authenticated to me than any thing can that is brought to contradict it) there is a 4 ſtriking difference between the ſtyle of the C. Re- marks and the Rejoinder. Of the firſt the M. Re- viewers ſay, © it is not ill written.” The ſecond bears the mark of a different hand; is heavy, looſe, abuſiveg the expreſſions low, the words ill choſen. Now while I continue to think thus of the C. Re- marks, I have no miſtake to acknowledge in the manner in which I have mentioned them. With the family of the Tobins I have little ac- quaintance. I was once in company with a ſhip- maſter of Nevis of that name, who had a ſon, a modern fine gentleman, as I was told, then in England. The firſt that came forward in this buſineſs was an J. Tobin, who, by a very extraor- 5 A 2 dinary | | + 2 dinary indulgence, was permitted to throw down = his gauntlet in the M. Review (Jan. 1786.) and | there claim the C. Remaks. But this claim he could not make good; not only for the reaſons already aſſigned, but becaule, in that Review, he denies his having made a perſonal attack on me, while the ſame Review cenſures theſe C. Remarks (page 30) for the aſperities and perſonalities of their language. So, here was Reviewer Tobin againſt Reviewer. The ſame Reviewers alſo ob- ſerve, that J. Tobin, in the unedited part of his letter, (I ſuppoſe) ſtrongly denies, in the moſt explicit terms, his being the apologiſt for Negro Slavery, (p. 32.) But the C. Remarks are a pro- feſſed apology for ſlavery, an attempt to prove, that ſlaves are fit only for their preſent ſtate, which is preferable to that of Engliſn peaſants. See C. Remarks, p. 85, &c. and M. Review, Oct. 1785. About the ſame time, two threatening letters came to my hand ſigned by another Tobin: I ſay another, becauſe ] cannot conceive how he, who had once committed his cauſe to the public, and meant to parade as a Reviewer in all the divine panoply of conſcious innocency, could think of calling a man out, who mult have been loſt to all ſenſe of propriety, and every principle of his pro- feſſion, in ſuch circumſtances to have met a bravo. If my courage mult be aſcertained, I have ſerved my country at ſea uſefully nine years. I have been , in ſeveral actions. I have often been in danger. I have gone into danger, becauſe I thought my duty required it, when I might have avoided it without cenſure. It was not on this, and on no other account could it be, neceſſary for me to meet one who ſeemed deſirous of getting himſelf hanged for murder, becauſe he was pleaſed to imagine himſelf hurt in the perſon of an anonymous libel- ler, and felt himſelf ſore, I have 5 T have heard that the ſon. Of. the above ſhip- maſter had in his youth been placed with an attor- ney in England. About 1760 or 1761, he came out on a vilit to Nevis; but I believe ſoon return- ed to England. On the death of his father, about 1768 or 1769, he made another ſhort viſit to Nevis. About 1779, he came out a third time, and re- mained about two or three years. Perhaps this may probably be you, who deſign yourſelf Eſquire, and late member of his Majeſty” s council for that iſland. But of this I am doubtful; for he, I be- lieve, was a native of Nevis, and you talk only of a reſidence there of ſome years, which it is not likely you thould do, had you had the happineſs to be born a Creole; a character which you affect to honour, and therefore, on a fair occaſion, would not ſuppreſs. Theſe contradictions, and this myſte- rious management, leave me free to imagine what is leaſt diſhonourable to the ſpecies of which I am partaker. And agreeably to this freedom, I ſhall conſider the anonymous author of the C. Remarks, the Reviewer J. Tobin, the Duelliſt YFTobin, the ſon of the above ſhip-maſter, and James Tobin, Eſquire, late member of his Majeſty's council, each as a diſtinct perſon. Should all theſe cha- raters meet in one perſon, they form ſuch an individual, as I deſire to know nothing more of. You ſet out, (p. 1.) with affirming that the Reply abuſes the author of the C. Remarks. For argu- ment's fake allow it. The M. Reviewers, (January 1786) in cenſuring the aſperities and perſonalities of his language, acknowledge that he gave the firſt hurt. But when a yelping cur attacks you in the highway, and attempts to bite your heel, do you run away from him, or do you pull your hat off, and ſay, Sweet Mr, Dog, trouble me not; or da you lend him a good hearty blow with a ſtick, or a ſtone, You, if you be the author of theſe Re- 1 marks, —— —— FREIE 3 marks, 1 , acknowledge that you hardly know me; and yet you ſtake your credit for the truth of a thouſand infamous falſhoods re- ſpecting me. If you really be the author of theſe remarks, come boldly forward, humble yourſelf under the cenſure of your friends the M. Reviewers, and make a manly apology, and if you can prove I have made a falſe charge againſt you, I ſhall take care not to be behind you in good manners. But till you ſhall have done this, remember, you can have no claim on me for any acknowledgment or ſatisfaction for what you ſhall have been pleaſed to object againſt, in my management of a diſpute with an anonymous libeller, or my ſubſequent | treatment of you, placing yourſelf in his room. 8 This charge of abuſe is repeated in the C. Re- i! marks, almoſt in every page, in the loweſt and [| moſt abuſive terms. Page 1, 2, 3, talk of © raſh 1 aſſertions, groſs miſrepreſentations, virulent invec- (| tives, illiberal, unchriſtian manner, fallacies, inju- fi rious, ill- founded aſſertions, pal pable and numerous contradictions. Page 4, acrimonious miſrepreſent- ation, intemperate or offended ſelf - ſufficiency, Page 6, ebullitions of his philanthropy. Page 23, unaccountable illiberality. Page 33, deteſtable carricature. Page 34, unjuſt, ungenerous ſarcaſms, reverend fatyriſt. Page 47, a daſh of white- waſh, and load of blacking-ball; twenty broken heads, and one plaſter. Page 102, Apoſtate, Preſbyterian parſon, metamorphoſed ſurgeon. Page 142, vehe- ment innovator, negro Calvin, ſable Knox. Page 143, arrogance of ſtyle. Page 146, petulance. Page 148, rancorous acrimony,” &c, &c. are the uſual terms which this anonymous libel applied to me, before I could have known that I had given _ offence. Now, in confirmation of the juſtice of all theſe illiberal expreſſions poured out on me, theſe C. Remarks * — ——— — — N 2 —p— —4 . — 2 og ; Bo Remarks condeſcend on one, and only on one in- ſtance of abuſe in my Eſſay; for they give up the profligate clergyman, and quote him, p. 104, on their own fide for a particular purpoſe. I ſhall place together this original fault of my Eſſay, and the C. Remark hazarded on it, and leave it to a man of your ſenſe and breeding, to determine how far they tally. My Eſſay, page 93, ſays, “ I have now in contemplation before me, a planter, who conceives himſelf to be a confcientious man, who, till lately, gave his negroes only fix herrings a week, and .thoſe not very regularly ſupplied.” Obſerve the C. Remark on this, p. 83. Here the author reſumes the darkeſt of his colours, to exhibit the moſt odious and contemptible portrait of an unfortunate individual, whoſe ample fortune, it appears, ſerved no better purpoſe than to render his unworthineſs more conſpicuous. The ſuppoſed original of this carricature 1s alſo, I am informed, gone to his account. Mr, Ramſay might there- fore, with propriety, have ſpared this inhuman ſketch : but he ſeems like the famous Spagnolet,“ (a ſimile from Aiken's Miſcellanies) “ to delight chiefly in pictures, which excite diſguſt and horror, and like him, therefore, fond of drawing from dead ſubjects.“ From this ſpecimen may be judg- ed the ſort and degree of provocation, which my Eſſay has given to planters. TI leave it to candour to ſay, whether even St. Paul's deſcription of charity may not be made a libel by the like ma- nagement. And can I ſuppoſe a privy counſellor to have uſed this bloated language, or to have employed himſelf in digging up from the grave a rotten carcaſe, merely to tell the publick that he had read Aiken's Miſcellanies ? | | | If then words have a meaning, the author of the C. Remarks dealt in perſonalities, and filled his pamphlet with abuſe; and to eſtabliſh the provo- A 4 cation, K CY. r — — —— ws — — — * — — — . Low ies A te — — — ed en ©. <0 2 2 — EY n — 3 22s #2 cation, on which he proceeded, he fixes only on one inſtance of abuſe, which yet is no abuſe, but a ſimple matter of fact, of the knowledge of which my ſituation made me perfectly competent. Hence J have a right to affirm, that my Eſſay was neither abuſive or perſonal. - And further, I give authority which you will not diſpute, the M. Review (July 1784, June 1785,) which repeatedly cenſured it for its lukewarm manner of treating ſuch a ſubject. The C. Remarks, and St. Kitt's Libel (ſee M. Review, Jan. 1786) firſt introduced perſonalities, by making my private character anſwerable for my reaſoning. When they had eſtabliſhed this into a maxim, and thereby faked the truth of their own cauſe on the perfect innocence of their own perſonal characters, I found myſelf obliged, it became part of my argument, to ſtrip my adverſaries of their borrowed plumes, degrade them from the cenſor's chair, and expoſe them in their true colours; for if I proved them corrupt, on their own principles, J proved their cauſe rotten. And I have the ſa- tis faction to reflect, that no man, who knows the parties, thinks that I have advanced a falſe thing, or in ſuch circumſtances as they had placed me, ſaid a word too much reſpecting them. The wonder is, how I could reſtrain my indignation at their illiberal treatment, and uſe my knowledge of their real characters with ſo much moderation. In your Rejoinder, p. 5, you accuſe me of quoting the C. Remarks falſely. Yet you requote the paſſages, without correcting one, except where, for brevity's ſake, I had explained a ſeven years ſervitude of vagabonds, by the phraſe making * vagabonds uſeful.” Of this you are free to make the moſt you can. - Your Rejoinder repeats this charge of abuſe againſt me, and yet every page of it is filled with the loweſt and moſt illiberal terms. P. 1, warm f irritable {K @ 3 irritable antagoniſt. P. 2, ill- conducted, vindictive attack. P. 3, 4, coarſe and uncouth daubing, wonted candour and conſiſtency. P. 5, mutilated ſcraps. P. 7, rancorous prejudice, hack and hew without mercy. P. 15, cruel and unforgiving ſpirit, P. 16, ungracious aſſault. P. 18, uncom- mon inveteracy, dilingenuous attempts. P. 19, intemperate ribaldry. P. 53, virulent antagoniſt. P. 54. Virulence and prejudice. P. gr, battery of blunderbuſſes. P. 92, petulant cavils, &c. P. 93, intemperate, unbecoming dialect. P. 98, re- lentleſs ſpirit, are but a few of the phraſes reſpect- ing me and my writings, with which your pam- Pphlet abounds. And they flow in ſo eaſy a manner as might induce perſons, not acquainted with the amiable character which you voluntarily give your- ſelf, p. 96, to imagine them to be your natural language. Should I do any injury to the accom- pliſhed man, who is there exhibited, by ſuppoſing (as in the caſe of the author of the C. Remarks,) ſome friend or hireling, in the dark, to have done this dirty work for you? Or are theſe indeed the moſt elegant and mild terms which your humane feelings (p. 92,) could permit you to uſe ? May not ſuch feelings allow of much licentiouſneſs, both in ſpeaking and acting? As your friends call theſe terms * animated language, in a very able man- ner, without ſarcaſtic retorts, and invective ex- preſſions,“ they will doubtleſs explain for the be- nefit of the publick, what conſtitutes ſarcaſm and invective. It cannot ſurely be the honeſt indigna- tion of innocence, when ſhe finds herſelf unluckily dragged into a diſpute, in the cauſe of virtue, and has to repel every illiberal falſe accuſation, that intereſted impudence can feign againſt her. In p. 7. 52. 63, 64, &c. you inſiſt on the credit due to your teſtimony from your acquaintance with plantation affairs, the probability of your knowing | more 6 w J more than I reſpecting them, and your having had the direction of near 1000 ſlaves of your own and your friends. You ſay your reſidence was in Nevis. Now though there be worthy men and humane planters in that colony, in my time, taking it generally, it was an unpromiſing place, wherein to ſearch for much good treatment or methodical management. It is a poor dry worn out foil; and two-thirds of the planters conſiſt of thoſe involved poor ſettlers, whom the C. Remarks charges with pinching and ill- treating their ſlaves. But if you be the ſon of the above Mr. Tobin, in your ſhort deſultory viſits, after you were grown up, you could have little opportunity, and being a fine gentleman you muſt have had but little inclina- tion, to inform yourſelf of the economy of a ji! _ Plantation, before your laſt ſettlement, about 1779, | Which I imagine was not above two or three years 1 before your removal to this country. Now, you know it to be the cuſtom for planters, ll! reſiding in England, to give their acquaintances, who are going abroad, letters of attorney, to act on their plantations for them. And often fo dif- ficult is it to ger perſons to accept of theſe powers, that they are glad ſometimes to make them in fa- . your of any who will receive them. The manager waits on ſuch attornies on their arrival; and a day is appointed for viſiting and dining at the planta- tion. Every thing appears fair. The abſent planter is informed that ſuch and ſuch ſupplies are want- ing, or that all is in- a promiſing way. The at- torney aſſumes the ſhipping of the ſugar, dines once a year with the manager, and figns his ac- counts. This 1s the progreſs of fuch a deſultory attorney, as you muſt have been, even in your laſt ſettlement abroad. But in my time not one in ten of them ever ſaw the inſide of their friend or conſtituent's negro hoſpital, The real OT - | elt „ Vaal — Or mW ret — — 2 - — — —— ——— pn ec. — Ty + *- » DN a — hier ar — . — - _— __—_ e 3 E W — —— —— —d — C 8 3 left with the manager, or with attornies, who are ſkilful planters, and have a fixed abode in the colonies, _ To fer againſt this, I had for many years the care, at different times, of above 3ooo flaves. I was daily among them to obſerve their treatment, and attend to their complaints. My ſituation en- abled me to become particularly acquainted with the ſtate of a full half of the plantations in St. Kitt's, and they were ſuch as were managed in the moſt methodical manner ; and I muſt have known, becauſe I made it my buſineſs to inquire, whatever was remarkable in the management of any planta- tion in that colony, which contained then from 25,000 to 30,000 ſlaves. 1 made alſo the tour of Nevis, and converival on the ſubject with ſenſible men of that colony; one of whom reading my Eſſay in MS. in its uncaſtigated ſtate, and neither did obſervation or information mark any thing particular. That there may be one or two plantations provided, as you aſſert, in neceſſary apartments for lying: in women, &c. is barely poſſible, (I know one in Nevis that comes near to it, except perhaps the lying: in apartments) but that, in July 1781, there was any number of well-ſupplied plantations in that iſland, (independent of the inconveniencies attending a ſtate of war) ſufficient to vindicate your general aſſertion, I poſitively deny. You make exceedingly free with my repreſenta- tion of the ſtate of ſlaves. In every page it is ex- aggerated, rancorous, virulent. Again, in p. 100, ſpeaking of Capt. Smith's letter, you ſay, “ it is ſenſibly written with manly candour;“ and p. 101, cc if every one who is properly qualified, would give his ſentiments with the ſame impartiality, Planters would have much leſs reaſon to complain of * of the many outrageous attacks which have been lately made upon them.” Now, that letter confirms whatever I have ad- vanced concerning ſlaves. He ſays, p. 12, © The ill treatment of ſlaves is too well known, and too univerſal to be denied.” P. 16, „He perfectly agrees with me in every part of my Eſſay.” P. 19, heſays, e it is aſtoniſhing that any man will preſume to affirm, that the negroes are better treated than the peaſantry in England.” This you know 1s di- rectly in the teeth of thoſe C. Remarks, which you claim. In your account of this letter, p. 101, you lay, „He confines his ſtrictures chiefly to one character.” He does not ſo, he gives one bad character as a ſample of the reſt, and ſays, the ill treatment is too wniverſal to be denied.” Again, you obſerve from his account of a ſingle humane planter, who treated his ſlaves in the French man- ner, that «© we may conclude there are as many kind and indulgent proprietors, as there are cruel and oppreſſive ones,“ p. 101, Now p. 14, 15, he confines the humanity he obſerved, to thoſe who followed the French cuſtom in the French quarter; but ſays, elſewhere it was the ſame as in the other iſlands, unfeeling and cruel. Thus to put the change on your Teaders, by ſinking a general ob- ſervation into a particular inſtance, and again ex- tending a particular inſtance into a general obſer- vation, will be accounted for in your next; as well as how that becomes candid and impartial, when affirmed by a military gentleman, which, from the pen of a clergyman, was rancorous, illiberal, exaggerated, and falſe. You ſay, p. 8. © I have no where wilfully en- deavoured to miſlead my readers.” We cannot account for the conſtitution of certain minds. To ſome crooked may appear ſtraight, and ſtraight crooked. Mr. Sheridan obſerves in his ſpeech, that = that a ſerpent cannot go ſtraight forward. All his motions are wriggling and twiſting. But recon- ſider the following inſtances, and you will allow that thoſe readers muſt be miſled, who take things in their obvious meaning. In my remarks on them, I ſhall return you the compliment you have paid me concerning the time of ringing the planta- tion bell in the morning, by ſuppoſing you acute enough to underſtand the meaning without my being obliged to uſe an unhandſome word. I. You quote, p. 58, this paſſage from the Reply. « A barrel of American flour | weighs one hundred and ninety-ſix pounds, this] ſhould be a week's allowance for thirty-ſeven negroes.” You ſuppreſs the words between the hooks, which aſcertain the weight, and then call the calculation obſcure. You proceed to affirm, that on every eſtate, with which you were connected, there was a regular weekly allowance of ſix pints of grain or flour. Now the allowance of fix pints is not diſputed with you. It is in my original Eſſay. But he will be impoſed on, who ſuppoleth a W. Indian pint equal to an Engliſh pint ; eight of which laſt weigh ſeven ounds. I wiſh not to mark individuals. I have carefully avoided it, till forced by their falſe friends in my own defence. But I could name a planta- tion, under the direction of the moſt exact perſon belonging to St. Kitt's, where 180 ſlaves had a weekly allowance of ſix pints, diſtributed out of two barrels. This 1s little more than two pounds to each. On eſtates in general, except where I have already made the diſtinction, this is the caſe, more or leſs in proportion, to the pinching accu- racy of the overſeer, This you will allow needs correction, Or to ſhew you how unwilling I am to bear hard on your veracity, I will ſuppoſe the quotation of the weight of the flour above to have been inadvertently dropped, and that notwithſtand- ing _ 7 mn ( * ) ing your having had the care of near 1000 ſlaves; you heeded the detail of plantation affairs ſo little, as not to have diſtinguiſhed between a pound and a pint of grain or flour. 2dly. In anſwer to my correction of the lor geon's ſalary ſaid in C. Remarks to be from / 50 to C60 for every 100 ſlaves, you ſay, p. 62, © There was no attempt at impoſition in your ſtatement, as your readers muſt naturally conclude you. meant the money of the country you were writing of.” Certainly you have a right to explain yourſelf. But if you conſider that in the C. Remarks, note p. 69, this / 60 is compared with hoſpital ſalaries in England, you muſt acknowledge the miſtake is not eaſily to be diſcovered, or allowed for. But I deny, that in my time, either at Nevis or St. Kitt's, there were ſalaries equal to / 60 currency for 100 ſlaves. In few inſtances in St. Kitt's did they rife to 30 currency. In ſome they were as low as / 10 currency. On few plantations was any allowance made for accidents; and where theſe were allowed for, they could not be equal to 4 6 currency per ann. P. 62, you go on to retort the impoſition on me for acknowledging 35. 4d. per head to be paid, when I had talked only of 149. My Eſſay ſhall ſpeak for itſelf. P. 82, „A ſur- geon's allowance per head varies from fourteen ence to three ſhillings; in ſome inſtances it riſes to three ſhillings and ſix-pence.“ The whole of this article is managed in a manner, in which I can give you no aſſiſtance. 3dly. In anſwer to my correction of country hvings, ſtated in C. Remarks at / 300 ſterling per ann. You ſay, p. 84, It was hardly worth my while to prove ſo particularly a trifling difference of { 50 or / 60; and that you have ſtill the ſame reaſons to think that you are little out in your cal- eulation, reſpecting the Ifland (Nevis) with which you | — —ñ—I4d— ͤͥ —— — —' EI D oo ta) | you are beſt acquainted.” By the by, L 50 is not a trifling difference to a Welch curate, to whom theſe livings are propoſed. Now, in my time, the falary in St. Kitt's, independent of a houſe, in no pariſh, except thoſe which I held, exceeded 300 currency (about Z 180 ſterling}. In Nevis the tt nominal ſalary was in ſugar, about a ninth part 1 higher; and one particular pariſh there, had a 1 glebe of conſiderable extent, but I believe not 11 very profitable. Still thoſe, who were beſt pro- | vided for in Nevis, would gladly have exchanged 1 for a ſettlement in St. Kitt's. In Antigua the com- mutation ſalary was much leſs. Say _ ſterling was a ſlip of the pen for currency. Athly. You ſay, p. 70. * You had, in mind, repeated preſentments againſt the indecency of working flaves on Sunday, which you had ſeen preferred in another iſland (Nevis) and were not dreaming of St. Kitt's. I marked the indecency as 1 prevailing at a particular time at St. Kitt's; to it, 4 therefore, I concluded your contradiction had been 4 given. But perſons acquainted with the police of Nevis, will be ſurprized to hear of theſe repeated preſentments, and be apt to aſk what was done in conſequence of them. If they happened in my time, (though if they did, I cannot account for my not having heard it) it was probably during the ſhort period wherein a worthy man, ſince loſt to ſociety, took the lead in ſuch matters. This you will allow needs to be cleared up, 5thly. To the following appearance of miſlead- ing your readers, I know not how to give a name. It is ſo plain, that he muſt be ſuppoſed blind, who does not diſcover it. You agree, p. 70, with me, that a caſk of ſugar weighs 1200 1b. at the king's beam, and ſells from 40s. to 52 5. p. ioo lb. which is from Z£ 24 to £31 4s. per caſk ; yet you ſay it is impoſition-! in me to affirm that ſugar- bakers, who 1 a — n * - vl — — _ —. — — — — 1 pay this price for the ſugar, pay from / 24 to C 30 per caſk, becauſe the caſk neats not to the planter above Z 10 or £12. In my Eſſay, the price paid by the ſugar baker is mentioned, to ſhew the im- portance of the ſugar colonies. But not a circum - ſtance appears, which can lead a perſon to ſuppoſe that the planter's profit, or even his receipt 1s meant. I well know their part is ſmall, and that the monoply of the Britiſh market alone enables them. to carry on the culture of the ſugar cane, by the unprofitable high-priced labour of ſlaves. But I pray you reconcile how my premiſes may be granted, and my concluſion denied. P. 97. You give what you call the drift of my inquiry into the African trade. I wiſh people to read the work itſelf, becauſe I cannot ſtand to your report. : P. 11, 12. You accuſe me of acrimonious and continued quarrels, and join with the C. Remarks in holding me up as the moſt abominable character, that ever was expoſed to the abhorrence of the publick. I dare affirm, I never in one inſtance began a quarrel, and never proſecuted one further than ſelf-defence made neceſſary, My quarrels aroſe out of the diſcharge of my duty as a clergy- man, a neighbour, and a citizen, among a thought- leſs people, broken by party, and ruled by faction. Independent of theſe circumſtances, during a re- ſidence of 19 years, four different perſons thought fit to expreſs their diſpleaſure at me. One of theſe was the Annotator in the St. Kitt's libel, Not finding food for his choler in my reſentment, he gradually reſumed, and was permitted, his former intimacy in my family. The three others, in their diſtreſs, in the very hour of their unprovoked ill- behaviour, made ſo little account of my rancour, as to ſolicit my friendſhip; and all three were eſſentially ſerved by me, The conſequence, at = | ay, ( 8: > day, of one of theſe good offices, performed ſeven· teen years ago, is the locking up from me upwards of { 3000 ſterling, which, but for a very unexpected circumſtance, muſt have been for ever loſt to my family. Such have been the effects of my rancorous temper. $54 P. 12, You exult at your having, at 4000 miles diſtance, thought and written like the African merchant and clergyman in the St, Kitt's libel. Again, p. 15, ſpeaking of him and me, you ſay, e the two holy gladiators appear to be in many reſpects tolerably well matched.” Your Rejoinder, and C. Remarks, are both full of ſarcaſms at cler- gymen. You cannot even reſtrain your ſpite here in the caſe of a volunteer combatant on your own ſide; and there are perſons, to whom I hope the profeſſion as ſuch will ever be obnoxious. But in theſe two paſſages, your diſguſt to clergymen has made you forget the reſpect due to yourſelf. You affirm me to be a moſt vile man; the African merchant is my match; you write and think as he does. By the faireſt figure in logic, you think and write like a vile man. It ſhall be left to the reader to determine, who is moſt like the African merchant whatever he may be; he who contradicts him in every poſition ; or he who thinks and writes as he does. But is it not for the credit of the author of the C. Remarks, to ſuppoſe, as I have done, that he has copied from, rather than thought and written like, ſuch a man ? * ig. . Lou cenſure me for introducing anony- mous letters. Did I publiſh the names of men _ reſiding in the W. Indies, and deprecating the uſual treatment of ſlaves, I ſhould be the cauſe of their being torn in pieces. You find I am not quite ſafe from the danger of being aſſaſſinated by a hot- headed zealot for oppreſſion even in England. But why, in much ſafer circumſtances, with a powerful body of planters to huzza and protect you, do you B in „ in p. 30 imitate the practice, by introducing an anonymous friend to contradict the general current of evidence, and even your own confeſſion, p. 101, when ſpeaking of Capt. Smith's letter, for the ſu- perior good treatment of French ſlaves? In this anonymous letter, a general concluſion is drawn from very meagre premiſes, the remarks of an in- dividual. But when he ſays that French ſlaves are allowed time for proviſions, he mentions a cuſtom forbidden by the Code Noir. It is not generally true, that, according to him, French ſlaves know not the advantage of hogs. In my Eſſay there is an inſtance given to the contrary in Guadaloupe. 