One principal object of our publication is to draw the attention of our fellow-colonists themselves to the debasing nature of these evils, to the end, that seeing them in their true light, they may be induced to adopt measures for their removal. We allude to the right, which the owner of a slave has, to inflict corporal punishment upon him, at his own sovereign will and pleasure: a right held under the Consolidated Slave Law, passed in 1816, still in force, and which would have been confirmed by the slave enactments of the legislature in 1826 and 1829, had they received the royal sanction. That this cruel and unjust right is generally, nay almost universally, exercised, no one, well acquainted with the state of society in our Island, will venture to deny. For our part, we firmly believe that there are very few estates, on which the slave is not in daily dread of the lash, and that in many families corporal punishment is commonly inflicted. The power of punishing is vested in the slave-owner, or his representative, who, by the same law, is constituted the judge of what offences require corporal punishment, not exceeding thirty-nine lashes. Be it understood, too, that the law stipulates for the exemption of no age nor sex. It merely prescribes the number of stripes, and provides that no second punishment shall take place in the same day, nor until the effects of the first are recovered from. Nay, the pregnant female is not by law exempted. One would have thought that our legislators, moved by the common feelings of our common nature would have interposed the protecting arm of the law to shield the female when thus situated, from the brutal power of ferocious man. But no—even she can be laid down—exposed, and flogged, in the presence of the assembled population of the estate! It is true that public feeling, in this case more humane and merciful in its restrictions than the law—has, in a great measure, shielded the pregnant woman, known to be such, from so shocking an outrage; but still, instances of such barbarity we believe too often occur; ruining the unfortunate woman's health, and destroying her unborn child.

The evil of corporal punishment is also shewn in a way truly painful to every friend to the spread of christianity. We allude to the effect it produces, in respect to the ordinance of marriage It consists with our knowledge, that slaves have preferred concubinage to marriage on the ground, that their wives might be indecently exposed, and cruelly flogged. And here it is to be observed, in explanation and support of this statement, that slaves, however licentious they may be, regard the marriage tie with a reverence and respect approaching to superstition. With whatever indifference they regard the degradation of a concubine we know that they look with horror on the degradation of a wife! Again, what kind of feeling can be expected to exist in the mind of a child, who witnesses the shameless punishment of a parent? Filial respect must be weakened, if not altogether destroyed.

And must not the feelings of the parent, who is constrained. to witness the miserable sufferings of a child, if not hardened in criminal indifference, be exquisitely painful. While we are upon this part of the subject, we cannot avoid recounting, as a proof that these things are not the chimeras of a distempered imagination, but sad realities of truth and experience, the particulars of an instance of corporal punishment, recently inflicted in one of our workhouses by order of the magistrates. It has been communicated to us, by an eye-witness, on whose veracity we can stake our own credit, and truly, it reflects indelible disgrace upon the community. Be it understood, however, that we introduce this statement, not in illustration of the main subject of the present article, viz. the dangerous power of inflicting corporal punishment entrusted by the law to private individuals, but in proof that the shameless, the unnatural, exposure of the parent's nakedness to the child, and vice versa, are no uncommon occurrences in our island. A memorandum was taken by our informant, soon after witnessing the scene, which he described, of which the following is nearly a verbatim copy. We omit names, but our informant has authorized us to supply them if required. * * *, a female, apparently about twenty-two years of age, was then laid down, with her face downwards; her wrists were secured by cords, run into nooses; her ankles were brought together, and placed in another noose; the cord composing this last one, passed through a block, connected with a post. The cord was tightened, and the young woman was thus stretched, to her utmost length. A female then advanced, and raised her clothes towards her head, leaving the person indecently exposed The boatswain of the workhouse, a tall athletic man, flourished his whip four or five times round his head, and proceeded with the punishment. The instrument of punishment was a cat, formed of knotted cords. The blood sprang from the wounds it inflicted. The poor creature shrieked in agony, and exclaimed, ‘I don't deserve this!’ She became hysterical, and continued so until the punishment was completed. Four other delinquents were successively treated in the same way. One was a woman about thirty-six years of age—another, a girl of fifteen—another, a boy of the same age; and lastly, an old woman about sixty, who really appeared scarcely to have strength to express her agonies by cries.” The boy of fifteen as our informant subsequently ascertained, was the son of the woman of thirty-six! She was indecently exposed, and cruelly flogged, in the presence of her son! and then had the additional pain, to see him also exposed, and made to writhe under the lash!

It is to be observed, to complete the hideous, but faithful picture, of the system of slave government, presented to us by the narrative of this transaction, that these unfortunates received this punishment, for an offence which their owner, it was strongly suspected, had compelled them to commit; and that too, under the terror of the lash—a circumstance accounting for the cry—‘I don't deserve this.’

Painful and melancholy as is the above detail, we know it to be but too faithful a picture of what is transacted, from week to week, by order of the magistrates, within those abodes of misery and degradation—the workhouses of our island.

But let us revert to the especial subject of the present article. The most appalling evil, resulting from the power, entrusted by the law to individuals, of inflicting the severest corporal punishment upon the slave, is unquestionably the extensive, and systematic destruction of unborn children! The helpless pregnant woman, as we have said, may, under the sanction of the law, be subjected to the lash! We are enabled to state, from respectable medical testimony, that in nine cases out of ten, such inflictions are followed by the destruction of the unborn child.”

“They affirm, that to emancipate the slaves would be to injure them; and that, before that can be done with good effect, preparatory steps must be taken Now this, or something like this, was said by bishops, members of this society, when preaching for the benefit of it, more than one hundred years ago. These assertions have been repeated many times by other bishops, and yet the task of preparation, it seems, is still to be begun;”— that even for slaves on the Society's estates—these are not yet fit to be elevated into the condition of human creatures, they are still chattels— notwithstanding all the moral and religious advantages which they have been favoured with under the superintendance of a religious society whose special object is the propagation of the gospel.

Much of the above has been quoted from a small work, that has recently issued from the Sheffield press. May this remonstrance, administered with no gentle hand in the original, sink deep into the heart of every member of the Church of England, who has part or lot in enslaving his fellow-creatures and fellow-subjects, and who may take up the story of Reuben Maddison and blame his master.

A National Church should feel peculiarly concerned to put away a national sin: but many members of the Church of England, alas! have slaves, and 300 are still held in trust at this time, belonging to the Bishops Archbishops, and Clergy of the Church of England. And have they a more just title to property in their fellow-men than the master of Reuben Maddison?—like him do they not condemn to perpetual slavery the young, unoffending children of the Negroes, and also make the Negroes labour for the purchase of that freedom to which they, like Reuben, are already entitled? and even when they offer the purchase money, as he did, it may be rejected—their bondsman may yet find they cannot escape the grasp of this society: for the society has resolved (and these are their own words), “that manumissions be granted from time to time to such slaves as shall have recommended themselves to favourable notice by continued good conduct; preference, in case of equally good conduct, being given to those who have purchased for themselves the greatest number of days.” If then, the conduct of the rejected number is as good as that of the happy few whose chains are broken, what must the feelings of those be who are condemned to remain in the miserable estate of slavery? They will wish, no doubt, as Reuben did, to part with their all, but they will not obtain their freedom from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel; they will still refuse to release their bondsman and bondswomen, and no doubt these will, in that case, be made to feel as Reuben did, that although they have recommended themselves, “by continued good conduct,” they are still “under the grasp of a demon.” But there is one strong feature of difference—the money wrung from Reuben, was to be added to the cankered gains of his master:—the money of the Codrington Negro will be put into the Treasury of God!!!!