It appears then, that if a new code of laws is indispensably necessary in our Colonies in order to secure a better treatment of the slaves there, we are not to look to the West Indian Legislatures for it.  To whom then are we to turn our eyes for help on this occasion?  We answer, To the British Parliament, the source of all legitimate power; to that Parliament, which has already heard and redressed in part the wrongs of Africa.  The West Indian Legislatures must be called upon to send their respective codes to this Parliament for revision.  Here they will be well and impartially examined; some of the laws will be struck out, others amended, and others added; and at length they will be returned to the Colonies, means having been previously devised for their execution there.

But here no doubt a considerable opposition would arise on the part of the West India planters.  These would consider any such interference by the British Parliament as an invasion of their rights, and they would cry out accordingly.  We remember that they set up a clamour when the abolition of the slave trade was first proposed.  But what did Mr. Pitt say to them in the House of Commons?  “I will now,” said he, “consider the proposition, that on account of some patrimonial rights of the West Indians, the prohibition of the slave trade would be an invasion of their legal inheritance.  This proposition implied, that Parliament had no right to stop the importations:  but had this detestable traffic received such a sanction, as placed it more out of the jurisdiction of the Legislature for ever after, than any other branch of our trade?  But if the laws respecting the slave trade implied a contract for its perpetual continuance, the House could never regulate any other of the branches of our national commerce.  But any contract for the promotion of this trade must, in his opinion, have been void from the beginning; for if it was an outrage upon justice, and only another name for fraud, robbery, and murder, what pledge could devolve upon the Legislature to incur the obligation of becoming principals in the commission of such enormities by sanctioning their continuance?”

They set up again a similar clamour, when the Registry Bill before mentioned was discussed in Parliament, contending that the introduction of it there was an interference with their rights also:  but we must not forget the reply which Mr. Canning made to them on that occasion.  “He had known, (he said,) and there might again occur, instances of obstinacy in the colonial assemblies, which left the British Parliament no choice but direct interference.  Such conduct might now call for such an exertion on the part of Parliament; but all that he pleaded for was, that time should be granted, that it might be known if the colonial assemblies would take upon them to do what that House was pleased to declare should be done.  The present address could not be misunderstood.