must have been notorious (or why were laws introduced by the colonists themselves for their prevention?) Since the year 1783, for the dates of the several acts or adververtisements are in 1784, 1785, 1787, 1788, 1789, and 1791. But if they must have been notorious since the year 1783, it is clear (the treatment of the slaves having improved though not kept pace with the improvement of the age) that they must have been equally notorious previous to the year 1783, that is to say, at the very time the Admirals were in the different islands with their respective fleets. Now the Admirals are as silent about these notorious facts in their evidence, as if they had never existed at all. If they knew them and concealed them (which we cannot believe) their evidence is unworthy of respect upon this occasion; and if they did not know them, it only confirms what has been said before, that they had not the same opportunities as other men, and that they were therefore incompetent as evidences upon so great a question.
The Admirals again have shewn themselves egregiously ignorant of a most notorious law, a law too, which exists at the present day, namely, "that the evidence of a slave is not valid against any white man." Had they been acquainted with this, they would have perceived instantly that it was in any master's power to [1] torture or even murder his slave with impunity, andthis
- ↑ Though the reader has seen laws enacted to prevent masters from cutting off the ears and noses of their slaves, and being guilty of other
cruelties,
