Supplement to the History of Mary Prince

Leaving Mary's narrative, for the present, without comment to the reader's reflections, I proceed to state some circumstances connected with her case which have fallen more particularly under my own notice, and which I consider it incumbent now to lay fully before the public.

For now, I leave readers to reflect on Mary's narrative without further comment. I will describe some circumstances of her case that have come particularly to my attention. I believe it is my duty to present these circumstances fully to the public now.

About the latter end of November, 1828, this poor woman found her way to the office of the Anti-Slavery Society in Aldermanbury, by the aid of a person who had become acquainted with her situation, and had advised her to apply there for advice and assistance. After some preliminary examination into the accuracy of the circumstances related by her, I went along with her to Mr. George Stephen, solicitor, and requested him to investigate and draw up a statement of her case, and have it submitted to counsel, in order to ascertain whether or not, under the circumstances, her freedom could be legally established on her return to Antigua. On this occasion, in Mr. Stephen's presence and mine, she expressed, in very strong terms, her anxiety to return thither if she could go as a free person, and, at the same time, her extreme apprehensions of the fate that would probably await her if she returned as a slave. Her words were, "I would rather go into my grave than go back a slave to Antigua, though I wish to go back to my husband very much—very much—very much! I am much afraid my owners would separate me from my husband, and use me very hard, or perhaps sell me for a field negro;—and slavery is too too bad. I would rather go into my grave!"

Near the end of November 1828, this poor woman found her way to the Anti-Slavery Society’s office in Aldermanbury. Someone who had learned of her situation helped her get there and advised her to seek advice and assistance. After making some initial inquiries into the accuracy of her account, I went with her to Mr. George Stephen, a solicitor. I asked him to investigate her case and write a statement of it. I also asked him to submit the statement to legal counsel. The aim was to find out whether, under the circumstances, her freedom could be legally established if she returned to Antigua. In Mr. Stephen’s presence and mine, she said very strongly that she wanted to return to Antigua if she could go as a free person. She also expressed her extreme fear of what would probably happen to her if she returned as a slave. Her words were, "I would rather go to my grave than go back to Antigua as a slave, though I want very much to go back to my husband, very much, very much! I am very afraid my owners would separate me from my husband and treat me very harshly, or perhaps sell me as a field negro. Slavery is too, too bad. I would rather go to my grave!"

The paper which Mr. Wood had given her before she left his house, was placed by her in Mr. Stephen's hands. It was expressed in the following terms:—

She gave Mr. Stephen the paper Mr. Wood had given her before she left his house. The paper read as follows:

"JOHN A. WOOD."

"JOHN A. WOOD."

"London, August 18, 1828."

"London, August 18, 1828."

This paper, though not devoid of inconsistencies, which will be apparent to any attentive reader, is craftily expressed; and was well devised to serve the purpose which the writer had obviously in view, namely, to frustrate any appeal which the friendless black woman might make to the sympathy of strangers, and thus prevent her from obtaining an asylum, if she left his house, from any respectable family. As she had no one to refer to for a character in this country except himself, he doubtless calculated securely on her being speedily driven back, as soon as the slender fund she had in her possession was expended, to throw herself unconditionally upon his tender mercies; and his disappointment in this expectation appears to have exasperated his feelings of resentment towards the poor woman, to a degree which few persons alive to the claims of common justice, not to speak of christianity or common humanity, could easily have anticipated. Such, at least, seems the only intelligible inference that can be drawn from his subsequent conduct.

Although this document contains inconsistencies that any attentive reader will notice, it is cleverly worded. It was well designed to serve the writer’s obvious purpose. He wanted to prevent the friendless black woman from appealing to strangers for sympathy. In that way, he hoped to prevent any respectable family from giving her shelter if she left his house. Because she had no one else in this country to provide a character reference, he was doubtless confident she would soon be driven back. Once her small amount of money was spent, she would have to throw herself unconditionally on his tender mercies. His disappointment when this did not happen seems to have increased his resentment toward the poor woman. Few people who recognize the demands of basic justice, let alone Christianity or common humanity, could easily have expected such resentment. At least, that seems to be the only understandable conclusion one can draw from his later conduct.

The case having been submitted, by desire of the Anti-Slavery Committee, to the consideration of Dr. Lushington and Mr. Sergeant Stephen, it was found that there existed no legal means of compelling Mary's master to grant her manumission; and that if she returned to Antigua, she would inevitably fall again under his power, or that of his attorneys, as a slave. It was, however, resolved to try what could be effected for her by amicable negotiation; and with this view Mr. Ravenscroft, a solicitor, (Mr. Stephen's relative,) called upon Mr. Wood, in order to ascertain whether he would consent to Mary's manumission on any reasonable terms, and to refer, if required, the amount of compensation for her value to arbitration. Mr. Ravenscroft with some difficulty obtained one or two interviews, but found Mr. Wood so full of animosity against the woman, and so firmly bent against any arrangement having her freedom for its object, that the negotiation was soon broken off as hopeless. The angry slave-owner declared "that he would not move a finger about her in this country, or grant her manumission on any terms whatever; and that if she went back to the West Indies, she must take the consequences."

At the Anti-Slavery Committee's request, the case was submitted to Dr. Lushington and Mr. Sergeant Stephen for consideration. They found that there was no legal way to compel Mary's master to grant her freedom. They also found that, if she returned to Antigua, she would inevitably become a slave again. She would fall under the power of her master or his agents. However, it was decided to try to help her through friendly negotiation. With this aim, Mr. Ravenscroft, a solicitor and relative of Mr. Stephen, called on Mr. Wood. He wanted to find out whether Mr. Wood would agree to free Mary on any reasonable terms. If required, Mr. Ravenscroft would also refer the amount of compensation for her value to arbitration. With some difficulty, he secured one or two meetings with Mr. Wood. But Mr. Wood was so hostile toward Mary and so firmly opposed to any arrangement to free her that the negotiation was soon abandoned as hopeless. The angry slave-owner declared "that he would not lift a finger for her in this country or grant her freedom on any terms whatever, and that if she went back to the West Indies, she must take the consequences."

This unreasonable conduct of Mr. Wood, induced the Anti-Slavery Committee, after several other abortive attempts to effect a compromise, to think of bringing the case under the notice of Parliament. The heads of Mary's statement were accordingly engrossed in a Petition, which Dr. Lushington offered to present, and to give notice at the same time of his intention to bring in a Bill to provide for the entire emancipation of all slaves brought to England with the owner's consent. But before this step was taken, Dr. Lushington again had recourse to negotiation with the master; and, partly through the friendly intervention of Mr. Manning, partly by personal conference, used every persuasion in his power to induce Mr. Wood to relent and let the bondwoman go free. Seeing the matter thus seriously taken up, Mr. Wood became at length alarmed,—not relishing, it appears, the idea of having the case publicly discussed in the House of Commons; and to avert this result he submitted to temporize—assumed a demeanour of unwonted civility, and even hinted to Mr. Manning (as I was given to understand) that if he was not driven to utter hostility by the threatened exposure, he would probably meet our wishes "in his own time and way." Having gained time by these manœuvres, he adroitly endeavoured to cool the ardour of Mary's new friends, in her cause, by representing her as an abandoned and worthless woman, ungrateful towards him, and undeserving of sympathy from others; allegations which he supported by the ready affirmation of some of his West India friends, and by one or two plausible letters procured from Antigua. By these and like artifices he appears completely to have imposed on Mr. Manning, the respectable West India merchant whom Dr. Lushington had asked to negotiate with him; and he prevailed so far as to induce Dr. Lushington himself (actuated by the benevolent view of thereby best serving Mary's cause,) to abstain from any remarks upon his conduct when the petition was at last presented in Parliament. In this way he dextrously contrived to neutralize all our efforts, until the close of the Session of 1829; soon after which he embarked with his family for the West Indies.

After several other failed attempts to reach a compromise, Mr. Wood’s unreasonable conduct led the Anti-Slavery Committee to consider bringing the case before Parliament. The main points of Mary’s statement were therefore written into a petition, which Dr. Lushington offered to present. He also offered to announce his intention to introduce a bill. The bill would provide for the complete emancipation of all enslaved people brought to England with their owner’s consent. But before taking this step, Dr. Lushington again tried to negotiate with the master. With Mr. Manning’s friendly intervention and through personal meetings, he used every means of persuasion he could to make Mr. Wood relent and set the enslaved woman free. Seeing the matter being taken so seriously, Mr. Wood finally became alarmed. He apparently did not like the idea of having the case publicly discussed in the House of Commons. To prevent this, he resorted to delaying tactics. He behaved with unusual civility and even hinted something to Mr. Manning, as I was given to understand. If the threat of exposure did not drive him into complete hostility, he would probably meet our wishes “in his own time and way.” Having gained time through these maneuvers, he cleverly tried to weaken the enthusiasm of Mary’s new friends for her cause. He portrayed her as an immoral and worthless woman, ungrateful to him and undeserving of anyone else’s sympathy. To support these accusations, some of his West India friends readily backed him up. He also obtained one or two plausible letters from Antigua. By these and similar tricks, he appears to have completely deceived Mr. Manning, the respectable West India merchant whom Dr. Lushington had asked to negotiate with him. He went so far as to persuade Dr. Lushington himself not to comment on his conduct when the petition was finally presented in Parliament. Dr. Lushington acted out of a kind desire to serve Mary’s cause as well as he could. In this way, Mr. Wood skillfully managed to defeat all our efforts until the end of the 1829 Session. Soon afterward, he and his family sailed for the West Indies.

Every exertion for Mary's relief having thus failed; and being fully convinced from a twelvemonth's observation of her conduct, that she was really a well-disposed and respectable woman; I engaged her, in December 1829, as a domestic servant in my own family. In this capacity she has remained ever since; and I am thus enabled to speak of her conduct and character with a degree of confidence I could not have otherwise done. The importance of this circumstance will appear in the sequel.

Every effort to help Mary had failed. After observing her conduct for a year, I was fully convinced that she was a well-meaning and respectable woman. So, in December 1829, I hired her as a domestic servant in my own family. She has remained in that role ever since. This allows me to speak about her conduct and character with more confidence than I otherwise could. The importance of this will become clear later.

From the time of Mr. Wood's departure to Antigua, in 1829, till June or July last, no farther effort was attempted for Mary's relief. Some faint hope was still cherished that this unconscionable man would at length relent, and "in his own time and way," grant the prayer of the exiled negro woman. After waiting, however, nearly twelve months longer, and seeing the poor woman's spirits daily sinking under the sickening influence of hope deferred, I resolved on a final attempt in her behalf, through the intervention of the Moravian Missionaries, and of the Governor of Antigua. At my request, Mr. Edward Moore, agent of the Moravian Brethren in London, wrote to the Rev. Joseph Newby, their Missionary in that island, empowering him to negotiate in his own name with Mr. Wood for Mary's manumission, and to procure his consent, if possible, upon terms of ample pecuniary compensation. At the same time the excellent and benevolent William Allen, of the Society of Friends, wrote to Sir Patrick Ross, the Governor of the Colony, with whom he was on terms of friendship, soliciting him to use his influence in persuading Mr. Wood to consent: and I confess I was sanguine enough to flatter myself that we should thus at length prevail. The result proved, however, that I had not yet fully appreciated the character of the man we had to deal with.

From Mr. Wood's departure for Antigua in 1829 until June or July of last year, no further attempt was made to help Mary. We still held a faint hope that this unconscionable man would finally relent. We hoped he would grant the exiled Black woman's plea "in his own time and way." But after waiting nearly another twelve months, I saw the poor woman's spirits sink daily as hope kept being deferred. So I resolved to make one final attempt on her behalf, with the help of the Moravian Missionaries and the Governor of Antigua. At my request, Mr. Edward Moore, the London agent of the Moravian Brethren, wrote to their missionary on the island, the Rev. Joseph Newby. He authorized Mr. Newby to negotiate with Mr. Wood in his own name for Mary's freedom. He was to obtain Mr. Wood's consent, if possible, by offering him generous financial compensation. At the same time, the excellent and benevolent William Allen, of the Society of Friends, wrote to Sir Patrick Ross, the Governor of the Colony. They were friends, and William Allen asked Sir Patrick to use his influence to persuade Mr. Wood to consent. I confess that I was hopeful enough to believe we would finally succeed. The outcome showed, however, that I had not yet fully understood the character of the man we were dealing with.

Mr. Newby's answer arrived early in November last, mentioning that he had done all in his power to accomplish our purpose, but in vain; and that if Mary's manumission could not be obtained without Mr. Wood's consent, he believed there was no prospect of its ever being effected.

Mr. Newby's reply arrived early last November. He said he had done all he could to achieve our purpose, but without success. He believed that if Mary's freedom could not be obtained without Mr. Wood's consent, there was no prospect of her ever being freed.

A few weeks afterwards I was informed by Mr. Allen, that he had received a letter from Sir Patrick Ross, stating that he also had used his best endeavours in the affair, but equally without effect. Sir Patrick at the same time inclosed a letter, addressed by Mr. Wood to his Secretary, Mr. Taylor, assigning his reasons for persisting in this extraordinary course. This letter requires our special attention. Its tenor is as follows:—

A few weeks later, Mr. Allen told me he had received a letter from Sir Patrick Ross. Sir Patrick said he had also done his best in the matter, but without success. He also enclosed a letter from Mr. Wood to his Secretary, Mr. Taylor. In the letter, Mr. Wood explained why he persisted in this extraordinary course of action. This letter deserves our special attention. It reads as follows:

"Charles Taylor, Esq.

Mr. Charles Taylor

&c. &c. &c.

etc. etc. etc.

Such is Mr. Wood's justification of his conduct in thus obstinately refusing manumission to the Negro-woman who had escaped from his "house of bondage."

This is how Mr. Wood justifies stubbornly refusing to free the Black woman who escaped from his "house of bondage."

Let us now endeavour to estimate the validity of the excuses assigned, and the allegations advanced by him, for the information of Governor Sir Patrick Ross, in this deliberate statement of his case.

Let us now consider how valid his excuses and claims are. He made them in this carefully prepared statement of his case for Governor Sir Patrick Ross.

1. To allow the woman to return home free, would, he affirms "be to reward the worst species of ingratitude."

1. He says that allowing the woman to return home free would "reward the worst kind of ingratitude."

He assumes, it seems, the sovereign power of pronouncing a virtual sentence of banishment, for the alleged crime of ingratitude. Is this then a power which any man ought to possess over his fellow-mortal? or which any good man would ever wish to exercise? And, besides, there is no evidence whatever, beyond Mr. Wood's mere assertion, that Mary Prince owed him or his family the slightest mark of gratitude. Her account of the treatment she received in his service, may be incorrect; but her simple statement is at least supported by minute and feasible details, and, unless rebutted by positive facts, will certainly command credence from impartial minds more readily than his angry accusation, which has something absurd and improbable in its very front. Moreover, is it not absurd to term the assertion of her natural rights by a slave,—even supposing her to have been kindly dealt with by her "owners," and treated in every respect the reverse of what Mary affirms to have been her treatment by Mr. Wood and his wife,—"the worst species of ingratitude?" This may be West Indian ethics, but it will scarcely be received as sound doctrine in Europe.

He seems to claim the supreme power to effectively sentence someone to banishment for the alleged crime of ingratitude. Should any person have such power over a fellow human being? Would any good person ever want to exercise it? Besides, there is no evidence at all, beyond Mr. Wood's mere assertion, that Mary Prince owed him or his family even the slightest gratitude. Her account of her treatment while working for him may be incorrect. But her straightforward statement is supported by detailed and plausible particulars. Unless it is disproved by definite facts, impartial minds will certainly find it more credible than his angry accusation. His accusation is absurd and improbable from the outset. Moreover, is it not absurd to call a slave's assertion of her natural rights "the worst species of ingratitude?" This would be absurd even if her "owners" had treated her kindly, and in every way opposite to how Mary says Mr. Wood and his wife treated her. This may be West Indian ethics, but it will hardly be accepted as sound doctrine in Europe.

2. To permit her return would be "to subject himself to insult whenever she came in his way."

2. Allowing her to return would mean "exposing himself to insult whenever he encountered her."

This is a most extraordinary assertion. Are the laws of Antigua then so favourable to the free blacks, or the colonial police so feebly administered, that there are no sufficient restraints to protect a rich colonist like Mr. Wood,—a man who counts among his familiar friends the Honourable Mr. Byam, and Mr. Taylor the Government Secretary,—from being insulted by a poor Negro-woman? It is preposterous.

This is an extraordinary claim. Are Antigua’s laws really so favorable to free Black people, or is colonial policing so weak, that they cannot adequately protect a rich colonist like Mr. Wood from being insulted by a poor Black woman? Mr. Wood counts the Honourable Mr. Byam and Mr. Taylor, the Government Secretary, among his close friends. The claim is ridiculous.

3. Her moral character is so bad, that she would prove very troublesome should she come to the colony "without any restraint."

3. Her moral character is so bad that she would be very troublesome if she came to the colony "without any restraint."

"Any restraint?" Are there no restraints (supposing them necessary) short of absolute slavery to keep "troublesome characters" in order? But this, I suppose, is the argumentum ad gubernatorem—to frighten the governor. She is such a termagant, it seems, that if she once gets back to the colony free, she will not only make it too hot for poor Mr. Wood, but the police and courts of justice will scarce be a match for her! Sir Patrick Ross, no doubt, will take care how he intercedes farther for so formidable a virago! How can one treat such arguments seriously?

"Any restraint?" If restraints are necessary, are there none short of absolute slavery to keep "troublesome characters" in order? But this, I suppose, is the argumentum ad gubernatorem, an argument meant to frighten the governor. She is such a shrew, it seems, that if she returns to the colony free, she will make life unbearable for poor Mr. Wood. And not only that, but the police and courts will scarcely be able to handle her! Sir Patrick Ross will no doubt think twice before pleading further for such a formidable woman! How can anyone take such arguments seriously?

4. She is not a native of the colony, and he knows of no relation she has there.

4. She was not born in the colony, and he knows of no relatives she has there.

True: But was it not her home (so far as a slave can have a home) for thirteen or fourteen years? Were not the connexions, friendships, and associations of her mature life formed there? Was it not there she hoped to spend her latter years in domestic tranquillity with her husband, free from the lash of the taskmaster? These considerations may appear light to Mr. Wood, but they are every thing to this poor woman.

True. But was it not her home for thirteen or fourteen years, as far as an enslaved person can have a home? Were her relationships, friendships, and connections as an adult not formed there? Was it not there that she hoped to spend her later years peacefully at home with her husband, free from the taskmaster’s whip? These things may seem unimportant to Mr. Wood, but they are everything to this poor woman.

5. He induced her, he says, to take a husband, a short time before she left Antigua, and gave them a comfortable house in his yard, &c. &c.

5. He says he persuaded her to marry shortly before she left Antigua. He also says he gave them a comfortable house in his yard, and so on.

This paragraph merits attention. He "induced her to take a husband?" If the fact were true, what brutality of mind and manners does it not indicate among these slave-holders? They refuse to legalize the marriages of their slaves, but induce them to form such temporary connexions as may suit the owner's conveniency, just as they would pair the lower animals; and this man has the effrontery to tell us so! Mary, however, tells a very different story, (see page 17;) and her assertion, independently of other proof, is at least as credible as Mr. Wood's. The reader will judge for himself as to the preponderance of internal evidence in the conflicting statements.

This paragraph deserves attention. He "persuaded her to take a husband?" If that were true, what brutality of mind and behavior it would reveal among these slaveholders! They refuse to give their slaves' marriages legal recognition. But they persuade them to form temporary relationships to suit the owner's convenience, just as they would pair animals. And this man has the nerve to tell us so! Mary, however, tells a very different story (see page 17). Even without other evidence, her account is at least as believable as Mr. Wood's. Readers can judge for themselves which conflicting account is more convincing on its own.

6. He alleges that she was, before marriage, licentious, and even depraved in her conduct, and unfaithful to her husband afterwards.

6. He claims that before marriage she was sexually immoral, even depraved, and that she was unfaithful to her husband afterward.

These are serious charges. But if true, or even partially true, how comes it that a person so correct in his family hours and arrangements as Mr. Wood professes to be, and who expresses so edifying a horror of licentiousness, could reconcile it to his conscience to keep in the bosom of his family so depraved, as well as so troublesome a character for at least thirteen years, and confide to her for long periods too the charge of his house and the care of his children—for such I shall shew to have been the facts? How can he account for not having rid himself with all speed, of so disreputable an inmate—he who values her loss so little "in a pecuniary point of view?" How can he account for having sold five other slaves in that period, and yet have retained this shocking woman—nay, even have refused to sell her, on more than one occasion, when offered her full value? It could not be from ignorance of her character, for the circumstance which he adduces as a proof of her shameless depravity, and which I have omitted on account of its indecency, occurred, it would appear, not less than ten years ago. Yet, notwithstanding her alleged ill qualities and habits of gross immorality, he has not only constantly refused to part with her; but after thirteen long years, brings her to England as an attendant on his wife and children, with the avowed intention of carrying her back along with his maiden daughter, a young lady returning from school! Such are the extraordinary facts; and until Mr. Wood shall reconcile these singular inconsistencies between his actions and his allegations, he must not be surprised if we in England prefer giving credit to the former rather than the latter; although at present it appears somewhat difficult to say which side of the alternative is the more creditable to his own character.

These are serious charges. But suppose they are true, or even partly true. Mr. Wood claims to be so careful about his household routines and arrangements. He also expresses such an edifying horror of sexual immorality. How, then, could he justify keeping such a depraved and troublesome person in his family for at least thirteen years? How could he also entrust her with his house and children for long periods? I shall show that these were the facts. How can he explain why he did not get rid of such a disreputable member of his household immediately? After all, he values her loss so little "in a pecuniary point of view." How can he explain selling five other slaves during that time while keeping this shocking woman? Indeed, he refused to sell her more than once, even when offered her full value. He cannot have been unaware of her character. The incident he offers as proof of her shameless depravity apparently happened at least ten years ago. I have omitted the incident because of its indecency. Yet despite her alleged bad qualities and grossly immoral habits, he has consistently refused to part with her. After thirteen long years, he even brought her to England to attend his wife and children. He openly intended to take her back with him, along with his unmarried daughter, a young lady returning from school! These are the extraordinary facts. Until Mr. Wood explains the remarkable contradictions between his actions and his accusations, he should not be surprised if we in England prefer to believe his actions rather than his accusations. Though, for now, it is somewhat difficult to say which is more creditable to his own character.

7. Her husband, he says, has taken another wife; "so that on that score," he adds, "he does her no injury."

7. He says her husband has taken another wife. "So in that respect," he adds, "he does her no harm."

Supposing this fact be true, (which I doubt, as I doubt every mere assertion from so questionable a quarter,) I shall take leave to put a question or two to Mr. Wood's conscience. Did he not write from England to his friend Mr. Darrel, soon after Mary left his house, directing him to turn her husband, Daniel James, off his premises, on account of her offence; telling him to inform James at the same time that his wife had taken up with another man, who had robbed her of all she had—a calumny as groundless as it was cruel? I further ask if the person who invented this story (whoever he may be,) was not likely enough to impose similar fabrications on the poor negro man's credulity, until he may have been induced to prove false to his marriage vows, and to "take another wife," as Mr. Wood coolly expresses it? But withal, I strongly doubt the fact of Daniel James' infidelity; for there is now before me a letter from himself to Mary, dated in April 1830, couched in strong terms of conjugal affection; expressing his anxiety for her speedy return, and stating that he had lately "received a grace" (a token of religious advancement) in the Moravian church, a circumstance altogether incredible if the man were living in open adultery, as Mr. Wood's assertion implies.

Suppose this claim is true. I doubt it, just as I doubt every unsupported assertion from such a questionable source. Even so, I must put a question or two to Mr. Wood's conscience. Soon after Mary left his house, did he not write from England to his friend Mr. Darrel? Did he not instruct Mr. Darrel to turn her husband, Daniel James, off his property because of her offence? Did he not also tell Mr. Darrel to inform James that his wife had taken up with another man? According to this story, the man had robbed her of all she had. The accusation was as groundless as it was cruel. I also ask about the person who invented this story, whoever he may be. Was he not likely enough to feed similar lies to the trusting poor black man? Might those lies have led Daniel James to break his marriage vows and to "take another wife," as Mr. Wood coolly puts it? Even so, I strongly doubt that Daniel James was unfaithful. I have before me a letter from him to Mary, dated April 1830. It expresses strong affection for his wife and his eagerness for her speedy return. He also says that he had recently "received a grace" (a sign of religious advancement) in the Moravian church. That would be altogether unbelievable if he were living in open adultery, as Mr. Wood's assertion implies.

8. Mary, he says, endeavoured to injure the character of his family by infamous falsehoods, which were embodied in a petition to the House of Commons, and would have been presented, had not his friends from Antigua, the Hon. Mr. Byam, and Dr. Coull, disproved her assertions.

8. He says Mary tried to damage his family’s reputation with outrageous lies. These lies were included in a petition to the House of Commons. He says the petition would have been presented if his friends from Antigua, the Hon. Mr. Byam and Dr. Coull, had not disproved her claims.

I can say something on this point from my own knowledge. Mary's petition contained simply a brief statement of her case, and, among other things, mentioned the treatment she had received from Mr. and Mrs. Wood. Now the principal facts are corroborated by other evidence, and Mr. Wood must bring forward very different testimony from that of Dr. Coull before well-informed persons will give credit to his contradiction. The value of that person's evidence in such cases will be noticed presently. Of the Hon. Mr. Byam I know nothing, and shall only at present remark that it is not likely to redound greatly to his credit to appear in such company. Furthermore, Mary's petition was presented, as Mr. Wood ought to know; though it was not discussed, nor his conduct exposed as it ought to have been.

I can speak on this point from my own knowledge. Mary's petition simply gave a brief account of her case. Among other things, it mentioned how Mr. and Mrs. Wood had treated her. The main facts are supported by other evidence. Mr. Wood must offer very different testimony from Dr. Coull's before well-informed people will believe his denial. I will discuss the value of Dr. Coull's evidence in such cases shortly. I know nothing about the Hon. Mr. Byam. For now, I will only say that appearing in such company is unlikely to reflect well on him. Furthermore, Mary's petition was presented, as Mr. Wood ought to know. But it was not discussed, and his conduct was not exposed as it should have been.

9. He speaks of the liability he should incur, under the Consolidated Slave Law, of dealing with a free person as a slave.

9. He speaks of the liability he would face under the Consolidated Slave Law for treating a free person as a slave.

Is not this pretext hypocritical in the extreme? What liability could he possibly incur by voluntarily resigning the power, conferred on him by an iniquitous colonial law, of re-imposing the shackles of slavery on the bondwoman from whose limbs they had fallen when she touched the free soil of England?—There exists no liability from which he might not have been easily secured, or for which he would not have been fully compensated.

Isn't this excuse extremely hypocritical? What liability could he possibly face by voluntarily giving up his power to enslave her again? An unjust colonial law had given him that power. But her chains had fallen away when she set foot on the free soil of England. There was no liability he could not easily have been protected against or fully compensated for.

He adds in a postscript that Mary had a considerable sum of money with her,—from £36 to £40 at least, which she had saved in his service. The fact is, that she had at one time 113 dollars in cash; but only a very small portion of that sum appears to have been brought by her to England, the rest having been partly advanced, as she states, to assist her husband, and partly lost by being lodged in unfaithful custody.

He adds in a postscript that Mary had a considerable sum of money with her. He says she had saved at least £36 to £40 while working for him. In fact, she once had 113 dollars in cash. But she appears to have brought only a very small part of that sum to England. She says she had given some of the rest to help her husband. The remainder was lost after she entrusted it to someone who proved dishonest.

Finally, Mr. Wood repeats twice that it will afford him great pleasure to state for the governor's satisfaction, if required, such particulars of "the woman Molly," upon incontestable evidence, as he is sure will acquit him in his Excellency's opinion "of acting unkind or ungenerous towards her."

Finally, Mr. Wood twice says he would be very pleased to provide details about "the woman Molly" if asked. He says the details would be supported by undeniable evidence and would satisfy the governor. He is sure they would convince His Excellency that he had not acted "unkind or ungenerous towards her."

This is well: and I now call upon Mr. Wood to redeem his pledge;—to bring forward facts and proofs fully to elucidate the subject;—to reconcile, if he can, the extraordinary discrepancies which I have pointed out between his assertions and the actual facts, and especially between his account of Mary Prince's character and his own conduct in regard to her. He has now to produce such a statement as will acquit him not only in the opinion of Sir Patrick Ross, but of the British public. And in this position he has spontaneously placed himself, in attempting to destroy, by his deliberate criminatory letter, the poor woman's fair fame and reputation,—an attempt but for which the present publication would probably never have appeared.

That is well. I now call on Mr. Wood to keep his pledge and provide facts and evidence that fully clarify the matter. Let him explain, if he can, the extraordinary contradictions I have pointed out between his claims and the actual facts. Above all, let him explain the contradictions between his account of Mary Prince's character and his own conduct toward her. He must now provide an account that clears him not only in Sir Patrick Ross's opinion, but also in the opinion of the British public. He has put himself in this position by deliberately attempting, in his accusing letter, to destroy the poor woman's good name and reputation. But for that attempt, this publication would probably never have appeared.

Here perhaps we might safely leave the case to the judgment of the public; but as this negro woman's character, not the less valuable to her because her condition is so humble, has been so unscrupulously blackened by her late master, a party so much interested and inclined to place her in the worst point of view,—it is incumbent on me, as her advocate with the public, to state such additional testimony in her behalf as I can fairly and conscientiously adduce.

Perhaps we could safely leave the case to the public's judgment here. But her former master has unscrupulously damaged this Black woman's reputation. Her reputation is no less valuable to her because her social position is humble. Her former master has a strong personal interest in the case and is inclined to portray her as badly as possible. As her advocate before the public, I must therefore present the additional evidence in her favor that I can fairly and conscientiously offer.

My first evidence is Mr. Joseph Phillips, of Antigua. Having submitted to his inspection Mr. Wood's letter and Mary Prince's narrative, and requested his candid and deliberate sentiments in regard to the actual facts of the case, I have been favoured with the following letter from him on the subject:—

My first witness is Mr. Joseph Phillips of Antigua. I gave him Mr. Wood's letter and Mary Prince's narrative to review. I asked for his honest and considered views on the actual facts of the case. He sent me the following letter on the subject:

I leave the preceding letter to be candidly weighed by the reader in opposition to the inculpatory allegations of Mr. Wood—merely remarking that Mr. Wood will find it somewhat difficult to impugn the evidence of Mr. Phillips, whose "upright," "unimpeached," and "unexceptionable" character, he has himself vouched for in unqualified terms, by affixing his signature to the testimonial published in the Weekly Register of Antigua in 1825. (See Note below.)

I leave it to the reader to weigh the preceding letter fairly against Mr. Wood’s accusations. I will only add that Mr. Wood will find it somewhat difficult to challenge Mr. Phillips’s evidence. Mr. Wood himself vouched without qualification for Mr. Phillips’s "upright," "unimpeached," and "unexceptionable" character. He did so by signing the testimonial published in the Weekly Register of Antigua in 1825. (See Note below.)

The next testimony in Mary's behalf is that of Mrs. Forsyth, a lady in whose service she spent the summer of 1829.—(See page 21.) This lady, on leaving London to join her husband, voluntarily presented Mary with a certificate, which, though it relates only to a recent and short period of her history, is a strong corroboration of the habitual respectability of her character. It is in the following terms:—

The next testimony on Mary's behalf comes from Mrs. Forsyth, for whom Mary worked during the summer of 1829. (See page 21.) When Mrs. Forsyth left London to join her husband, she voluntarily gave Mary a certificate. Although it covers only a recent, short period of Mary's life, it strongly supports her reputation for consistent respectability. It reads as follows:

In the last place, I add my own testimony in behalf of this negro woman. Independently of the scrutiny, which, as Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society, I made into her case when she first applied for assistance, at 18, Aldermanbury, and the watchful eye I kept upon her conduct for the ensuing twelvemonths, while she was the occasional pensioner of the Society, I have now had the opportunity of closely observing her conduct for fourteen months, in the situation of a domestic servant in my own family; and the following is the deliberate opinion of Mary's character, formed not only by myself, but also by my wife and sister-in-law, after this ample period of observation. We have found her perfectly honest and trustworthy in all respects; so that we have no hesitation in leaving every thing in the house at her disposal. She had the entire charge of the house during our absence in Scotland for three months last autumn, and conducted herself in that charge with the utmost discretion and fidelity. She is not, it is true, a very expert housemaid, nor capable of much hard work, (for her constitution appears to be a good deal broken,) but she is careful, industrious, and anxious to do her duty and to give satisfaction. She is capable of strong attachments, and feels deep, though unobtrusive, gratitude for real kindness shown her. She possesses considerable natural sense, and has much quickness of observation and discrimination of character. She is remarkable for decency and propriety of conduct—and her delicacy, even in trifling minutiæ, has been a trait of special remark by the females of my family. This trait, which is obviously quite unaffected, would be a most inexplicable anomaly, if her former habits had been so indecent and depraved as Mr. Wood alleges. Her chief faults, so far as we have discovered them, are, a somewhat violent and hasty temper, and a considerable share of natural pride and self-importance; but these defects have been but rarely and transiently manifested, and have scarcely occasioned an hour's uneasiness at any time in our household. Her religious knowledge, notwithstanding the pious care of her Moravian instructors in Antigua, is still but very limited, and her views of christianity indistinct; but her profession, whatever it may have of imperfection, I am convinced, has nothing of insincerity. In short, we consider her on the whole as respectable and well-behaved a person in her station, as any domestic, white or black, (and we have had ample experience of both colours,) that we have ever had in our service.

Finally, I add my own testimony on behalf of this black woman. As Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society, I investigated her case when she first applied for help at 18, Aldermanbury. I also kept a watchful eye on her conduct during the following twelve months, when she occasionally received support from the Society. Since then, I have had the opportunity to observe her conduct closely for fourteen months as a domestic servant in my own family. After this long period of observation, my wife, my sister-in-law, and I have formed the following considered opinion of Mary's character. We have found her completely honest and trustworthy in every respect. We therefore have no hesitation in leaving everything in the house at her disposal. Last autumn, she had full charge of the house during our three-month absence in Scotland. She carried out that responsibility with the utmost discretion and loyalty. It is true that she is not a very skilled housemaid, nor is she capable of much hard work, for her health seems badly broken. But she is careful and hardworking, and she is eager to do her duty and give satisfaction. She is capable of strong attachments and feels deep, though unobtrusive, gratitude for genuine kindness. She has considerable natural good sense and is quick to observe and judge character. She is remarkable for the decency and propriety of her conduct. The women in my family have especially noted her delicacy, even in the smallest details. This quality is obviously quite natural. It would be a most inexplicable contradiction if her former habits had been as indecent and depraved as Mr. Wood alleges. Her chief faults, as far as we have discovered, are a somewhat violent and hasty temper and a considerable amount of natural pride and self-importance. But she has shown these faults only rarely and briefly. They have scarcely caused our household an hour's uneasiness at any time. Despite the devoted care of her Moravian instructors in Antigua, her religious knowledge is still very limited, and her understanding of Christianity is unclear. But whatever imperfections her declared faith may have, I am convinced that it is sincere. In short, we consider her, on the whole, as respectable and well behaved as any servant in her position whom we have ever employed, white or black. We have had ample experience of servants of both colors.

But after all, Mary's character, important though its exculpation be to her, is not really the point of chief practical interest in this case. Suppose all Mr. Wood's defamatory allegations to be true—suppose him to be able to rake up against her out of the records of the Antigua police, or from the veracious testimony of his brother colonists, twenty stories as bad or worse than what he insinuates—suppose the whole of her own statement to be false, and even the whole of her conduct since she came under our observation here to be a tissue of hypocrisy;—suppose all this—and leave the negro woman as black in character as in complexion,²¹—yet it would affect not the main facts—which are these.—1. Mr. Wood, not daring in England to punish this woman arbitrarily, as he would have done in the West Indies, drove her out of his house, or left her, at least, only the alternative of returning instantly to Antigua, with the certainty of severe treatment there, or submitting in silence to what she considered intolerable usage in his household. 2. He has since obstinately persisted in refusing her manumission, to enable her to return home in security, though repeatedly offered more than ample compensation for her value as a slave; and this on various frivolous pretexts, but really, and indeed not unavowedly, in order to punish her for leaving his service in England, though he himself had professed to give her that option. These unquestionable facts speak volumes.²²

But in the end, Mary's character is not the main practical issue in this case, important as clearing her name is to her. Suppose all Mr. Wood's defamatory allegations are true. Suppose he could dig up twenty stories as bad as or worse than his insinuations. They might come from the Antigua police records or the truthful testimony of his fellow colonists. Suppose her entire statement is false. Suppose even that all her conduct since she came under our observation here has been a web of hypocrisy. Suppose all this, and leave the Black woman as black in character as in complexion.²¹ Even so, none of it would change the main facts, which are these. 1. Mr. Wood did not dare punish Mary arbitrarily in England, as he would have done in the West Indies. Instead, he drove her out of his house. At the very least, he left her only two choices. She could return to Antigua immediately, certain of severe treatment there. Or she could submit in silence to what she considered intolerable treatment in his household. 2. He has since stubbornly refused to grant her manumission, which would allow her to return home safely. He has refused despite repeated offers of more than ample compensation for her value as a slave. He has given various flimsy excuses for refusing. But his real reason, which he has not even denied, is to punish her for leaving his service in England. He has done this even though he himself had claimed to give her that choice. These unquestionable facts speak volumes.²²

The case affords a most instructive illustration of the true spirit of the slave system, and of the pretensions of the slave-holders to assert, not merely their claims to a "vested right" in the labour of their bondmen, but to an indefeasible property in them as their "absolute chattels." It furnishes a striking practical comment on the assertions of the West Indians that self-interest is a sufficient check to the indulgence of vindictive feelings in the master; for here is a case where a man (a respectable and benevolent man as his friends aver,) prefers losing entirely the full price of the slave, for the mere satisfaction of preventing a poor black woman from returning home to her husband! If the pleasure of thwarting the benevolent wishes of the Anti-Slavery Society in behalf of the deserted negro, be an additional motive with Mr. Wood, it will not much mend his wretched plea.

This case clearly reveals the true spirit of the slave system. It shows that slaveholders claim not only a "vested right" to the labour of enslaved people, but also an unquestionable right to own them as their "absolute chattels." The case also offers a striking answer to claims made by West Indians. They say that self-interest is enough to stop a master from acting on feelings of revenge. Yet here is a man who chooses to lose the full price of the slave. He does so merely for the satisfaction of preventing a poor black woman from returning home to her husband! His friends claim that he is a respectable and benevolent man. If Mr. Wood is also motivated by the pleasure of frustrating the Anti-Slavery Society's compassionate efforts on behalf of the abandoned black woman, that hardly improves his wretched excuse.

I may here add a few words respecting the earlier portion of Mary Prince's narrative. The facts there stated must necessarily rest entirely,—since we have no collateral evidence,—upon their intrinsic claims to probability, and upon the reliance the reader may feel disposed, after perusing the foregoing pages, to place on her veracity. To my judgment, the internal evidence of the truth of her narrative appears remarkably strong. The circumstances are related in a tone of natural sincerity, and are accompanied in almost every case with characteristic and minute details, which must, I conceive, carry with them full conviction to every candid mind that this negro woman has actually seen, felt, and suffered all that she so impressively describes; and that the picture she has given of West Indian slavery is not less true than it is revolting.

I may add a few words about the earlier part of Mary Prince's narrative. We have no supporting evidence for the facts stated there. They must therefore rest entirely on how plausible they are in themselves. They also depend on how much trust the reader is willing to place in her truthfulness after reading the preceding pages. In my judgment, the evidence within her narrative strongly supports its truth. She describes the events with natural sincerity and, in almost every case, includes distinctive and precise details. I believe these details must fully convince any fair-minded reader that this Black woman actually saw, felt, and suffered all she describes so powerfully. They must also convince the reader that her account of West Indian slavery is as true as it is revolting.

But there may be some persons into whose hands this tract may fall, so imperfectly acquainted with the real character of Negro Slavery, as to be shocked into partial, if not absolute incredulity, by the acts of inhuman oppression and brutality related of Capt. I—— and his wife, and of Mr. D——, the salt manufacturer of Turk's Island. Here, at least, such persons may be disposed to think, there surely must be some exaggeration; the facts are too shocking to be credible. The facts are indeed shocking, but unhappily not the less credible on that account. Slavery is a curse to the oppressor scarcely less than to the oppressed: its natural tendency is to brutalize both. After a residence myself of six years in a slave colony, I am inclined to doubt whether, as regards its demoralizing influence, the master is not even a greater object of compassion than his bondman. Let those who are disposed to doubt the atrocities related in this narrative, on the testimony of a sufferer, examine the details of many cases of similar barbarity that have lately come before the public, on unquestionable evidence. Passing over the reports of the Fiscal of Berbice,²³ and the Mauritius horrors recently unveiled,²⁴ let them consider the case of Mr. and Mrs. Moss, of the Bahamas, and their slave Kate, so justly denounced by the Secretary for the Colonies;²⁵—the cases of Eleanor Mead,²⁶—of Henry Williams,²⁷—and of the Rev. Mr. Bridges and Kitty Hylton,²⁸ in Jamaica. These cases alone might suffice to demonstrate the inevitable tendency of slavery as it exists in our colonies, to brutalize the master to a truly frightful degree—a degree which would often cast into the shade even the atrocities related in the narrative of Mary Prince; and which are sufficient to prove, independently of all other evidence, that there is nothing in the revolting character of the facts to affect their credibility; but that on the contrary, similar deeds are at this very time of frequent occurrence in almost every one of our slave colonies. The system of coercive labour may vary in different places; it may be more destructive to human life in the cane culture of Mauritius and Jamaica, than in the predial and domestic bondage of Bermuda or the Bahamas,—but the spirit and character of slavery are every where the same, and cannot fail to produce similar effects. Wherever slavery prevails, there will inevitably be found cruelty and oppression. Individuals who have preserved humane, and amiable, and tolerant dispositions towards their black dependents, may doubtless be found among slave-holders; but even where a happy instance of this sort occurs, such as Mary's first mistress, the kind-hearted Mrs. Williams, the favoured condition of the slave is still as precarious as it is rare: it is every moment at the mercy of events; and must always be held by a tenure so proverbially uncertain as that of human prosperity, or human life. Such examples, like a feeble and flickering streak of light in a gloomy picture, only serve by contrast to exhibit the depth of the prevailing shades. Like other exceptions, they only prove the general rule: the unquestionable tendency of the system is to vitiate the best tempers, and to harden the most feeling hearts. "Never be kind, nor speak kindly to a slave," said an accomplished English lady in South Africa to my wife: "I have now," she added, "been for some time a slave-owner, and have found, from vexatious experience in my own household, that nothing but harshness and hauteur will do with slaves."

But this tract may fall into the hands of people who know little about the true nature of Negro Slavery. They may be shocked into partial, if not complete, disbelief by the inhuman oppression and brutality described. These acts were committed by Capt. I—— and his wife, and by Mr. D——, the salt manufacturer of Turk's Island. Such readers may feel that there must surely be some exaggeration here. The facts are too shocking to believe, they may think. The facts are indeed shocking, but unfortunately that makes them no less credible. Slavery is a curse to the oppressor almost as much as to the oppressed. Its natural tendency is to brutalize both. I lived in a slave colony for six years. After that experience, I am inclined to wonder whether slavery's demoralizing influence makes the master even more deserving of compassion than his slave. Some may doubt the atrocities described in this narrative on the testimony of a person who suffered them. Let those people examine the details of many similar cases of barbarity recently made public on unquestionable evidence. I will pass over the reports of the Fiscal of Berbice²³ and the recently exposed horrors in Mauritius.²⁴ Instead, let them consider the case of Mr. and Mrs. Moss of the Bahamas and their slave Kate. The Secretary for the Colonies rightly condemned their treatment of her.²⁵ Let them also consider the cases in Jamaica of Eleanor Mead,²⁶ Henry Williams,²⁷ and the Rev. Mr. Bridges and Kitty Hylton.²⁸ These cases alone might be enough to show slavery's inevitable tendency, as it exists in our colonies. It brutalizes the master to a truly frightening degree. That brutality would often overshadow even the atrocities described in Mary Prince's narrative. These cases are also enough to prove, quite apart from all other evidence, that the horrifying nature of the facts does not make them less credible. On the contrary, similar deeds are occurring frequently at this very time in almost every one of our slave colonies. The system of forced labor may vary from place to place. It may destroy more lives in the sugarcane fields of Mauritius and Jamaica than in field and domestic slavery in Bermuda or the Bahamas. But slavery has the same spirit and character everywhere, and it cannot fail to produce similar effects. Wherever slavery exists, cruelty and oppression will inevitably be found. Some slaveholders have undoubtedly remained humane, kind, and tolerant toward the black people dependent on them. But even when such a fortunate example occurs, as with Mary's first mistress, the kind-hearted Mrs. Williams, the slave's favored position is as precarious as it is rare. It is at the mercy of events at every moment. It must always depend on something as famously uncertain as a person's prosperity or life. Such examples are like a faint, flickering streak of light in a gloomy picture. By contrast, they only reveal how deep the surrounding shadows are. Like other exceptions, they only prove the general rule. The system's unquestionable tendency is to corrupt the best temperaments and harden the most compassionate hearts. "Never be kind, nor speak kindly to a slave," an accomplished English lady in South Africa told my wife. "I have now," she added, "been a slave owner for some time, and have learned from frustrating experience in my own household that nothing but harshness and arrogance will do with slaves."

I might perhaps not inappropriately illustrate this point more fully by stating many cases which fell under my own personal observation, or became known to me through authentic sources, at the Cape of Good Hope—a colony where slavery assumes, as it is averred, a milder aspect than in any other dependency of the empire where it exists; and I could shew, from the judicial records of that colony, received by me within these few weeks, cases scarcely inferior in barbarity to the worst of those to which I have just specially referred; but to do so would lead me too far from the immediate purpose of this pamphlet, and extend it to an inconvenient length. I shall therefore content myself with quoting a single short passage from the excellent work of my friend Dr. Walsh, entitled "Notices of Brazil,"—a work which, besides its other merits, has vividly illustrated the true spirit of Negro Slavery, as it displays itself not merely in that country, but wherever it has been permitted to open its Pandora's box of misery and crime.

I could perhaps illustrate this point more fully by describing many cases from the Cape of Good Hope. I witnessed some myself and learned of others through reliable sources. The Cape is a colony where, some claim, slavery takes a milder form than in any other part of the empire where it exists. I could also cite cases from the colony’s court records, which I received in the past few weeks. They are scarcely less barbaric than the worst cases I have just discussed. But doing so would take me too far from the immediate purpose of this pamphlet and make it inconveniently long. I will therefore quote just one short passage from the excellent work of my friend Dr. Walsh, "Notices of Brazil." Among its other merits, the book vividly reveals the true spirit of Black slavery. That spirit shows itself not only in Brazil, but wherever slavery has been allowed to open its Pandora’s box of misery and crime.

Let the reader ponder on the following just remarks, and compare the facts stated by the Author in illustration of them, with the circumstances related at pages 6 and 7 of Mary's narrative:—

Consider the following fair comments. Compare the facts the Author gives to illustrate them with the events described on pages 6 and 7 of Mary's narrative:

In conclusion, I may observe that the history of Mary Prince furnishes a corollary to Lord Stowell's decision in the case of the slave Grace, and that it is most valuable on this account. Whatever opinions may be held by some readers on the grave question of immediately abolishing Colonial Slavery, nothing assuredly can be more repugnant to the feelings of Englishmen than that the system should be permitted to extend its baneful influence to this country. Yet such is the case, when the slave landed in England still only possesses that qualified degree of freedom, that a change of domicile will determine it. Though born a British subject, and resident within the shores of England, he is cut off from his dearest natural rights by the sad alternative of regaining them at the expence of liberty, and the certainty of severe treatment. It is true that he has the option of returning; but it is a cruel mockery to call it a voluntary choice, when upon his return depend his means of subsistence and his re-union with all that makes life valuable. Here he has tasted "the sweets of freedom," to quote the words of the unfortunate Mary Prince; but if he desires to restore himself to his family, or to escape from suffering and destitution, and the other evils of a climate uncongenial to his constitution and habits, he must abandon the enjoyment of his late-acquired liberty, and again subject himself to the arbitrary power of a vindictive master.

In conclusion, I would note that Mary Prince’s history illustrates a consequence of Lord Stowell’s decision in the case of the slave Grace. For that reason, her history is most valuable. Some readers may hold differing opinions on the grave question of immediately abolishing Colonial Slavery. But surely nothing could be more repugnant to Englishmen than allowing the system’s harmful influence to extend to this country. Yet it does extend here, because an enslaved person who lands in England has only a limited freedom. That freedom ends if the person changes residence. Though born a British subject and living in England, he is cut off from his dearest natural rights. The sad alternative is to regain them at the cost of his liberty and with the certainty of harsh treatment. It is true that he can choose to return. But calling that a voluntary choice is a cruel mockery. His livelihood and his reunion with everything that makes life valuable depend on his return. Here he has tasted "the sweets of freedom," to quote the unfortunate Mary Prince. But he may wish to return to his family or escape suffering and destitution. He may also wish to escape the other hardships of a climate unsuited to his constitution and habits. If so, he must give up his newly acquired liberty and submit again to the arbitrary power of a vindictive master.

The case of Mary Prince is by no means a singular one; many of the same kind are daily occurring: and even if the case were singular, it would still loudly call for the interference of the legislature. In instances of this kind no injury can possibly be done to the owner by confirming to the slave his resumption of his natural rights. It is the master's spontaneous act to bring him to this country; he knows when he brings him that he divests himself of his property; and it is, in fact, a minor species of slave trading, when he has thus enfranchised his slave, to re-capture that slave by the necessities of his condition, or by working upon the better feelings of his heart. Abstractedly from all legal technicalities, there is no real difference between thus compelling the return of the enfranchised negro, and trepanning a free native of England by delusive hopes into perpetual slavery. The most ingenious casuist could not point out any essential distinction between the two cases. Our boasted liberty is the dream of imagination, and no longer the characteristic of our country, if its bulwarks can thus be thrown down by colonial special pleading. It would well become the character of the present Government to introduce a Bill into the Legislature making perpetual that freedom which the slave has acquired by his passage here, and thus to declare, in the most ample sense of the words, (what indeed we had long fondly believed to be the fact, though it now appears that we have been mistaken,) that no slave can exist within the shores of Great Britain.

Mary Prince’s case is by no means unique. Many similar cases occur every day. Even if her case were unique, it would still demand action from Parliament. In such cases, confirming the enslaved person’s return to their natural rights cannot possibly harm the owner. The master chooses to bring the enslaved person to this country. He knows that, by bringing them here, he gives up his claim to own them. Once he has freed them, it is a lesser form of slave trading to recapture them by exploiting their need or appealing to their better feelings. Leaving legal technicalities aside, there is no real difference between forcing a freed Black person to return and tricking a free native of England into lifelong slavery with false hopes. Even the cleverest legal or moral reasoner could not point to any essential difference between the two cases. Our much-praised liberty is a dream, not a defining feature of our country, if colonial legal arguments can so easily destroy its protections. The present Government would do well to introduce a bill in Parliament making permanent the freedom an enslaved person gains by coming here. The bill should declare, in the fullest sense, that no slave can exist within the shores of Great Britain. Indeed, we had long and fondly believed that to be true, though it now appears we were mistaken.