employers alone, while the remaining part was intended for no human eye but his own. In this state of imprisonment he was detained, although the revolt was then entirely quelled. That it was so quelled, is ascertained from the dispatches of General Murray to Earl Bathurst, dated the 26th of August. At least the dispatch of that date admits that the public tranquillity was nearly restored; and, at all events, by subsequent dispatches, of the 30th and 31st, it appears that no further disturbance had taken place; nor was there from that time any insurrectionary movement whatever. At that period the colony was in the enjoyment of its accustomed tranquillity, barring always those chances of relapse, which, in such a state of public feeling, and in such a structure of society, must be supposed always to exist, and to make the recurrence of irritation and tumult more or less probable. Martial law, it will be recollected, was proclaimed on the 15th of August, and was continued to the 15th of January following-five calendar months-although there is the most unquestionable proof, that the revolt had subsided, and indeed that all appearance of insubordination had vanished.

In a prison such as I have described, Mr. Smith remained until the 14th day of October. Then, when every pretence of real and immediate danger was over; when every thing like apprehension, save from the state of colonial society, was removed; it was thought fit to bring to trial, by a military court-martial, this Minister of the Gospel! I shall now view the outside of that court-martial: it is fit that we look at its external appearance, examine the foundations on which it rests, and the structures connected with it, before we enter and survey the things perpetrated within its walls. I know that the general answer to all which has been hitherto alleged on this subject is, that mar

tial law had been proclaimed in Demerara.

But, Sir,

I do not profess to understand, as a lawyer, martial law of such a description: it is entirely unknown to the law of England-I do not mean to say in the bad times of our history, but in that more recent period which is called Constitutional. It is very true, that formerly the Crown sometimes issued proclamations, by virtue of which civil offences were tried before military tribunals. The most remarkable instance of that description, and the nearest precedent to the case under our consideration, was the well known proclamation of that august, pious, and humane pair, Philip and Mary, of happy memory, stigmatizing as rebellion, and as an act which should subject the offender to be tried by a court-martial, the having heretical, that is so say, Protestant books in one's possession, and not giving them up without previously reading them. Similar proclamations, although not so extravagant in their character, were issued by Elizabeth, by James the First, and (of a less violent nature) by Charles the First; until at length the evil became so unbearable, that there arose from it the celebrated Petition of Right, one of the best legacies left to his country by that illustrious lawyer, Lord Coke, to whom every man that loves the Constitution owes a debt of gratitude which unceasing veneration for his memory can never pay. The Petition provides that all such proceedings shall thenceforward be put down: it declares, "that no man shall be fore-judged of life or limb against the form of the Great Charter;" "that no man ought to be adjudged to death but by the laws established in this realm, either by the custom of the realm, or by Acts of Parliament;" and "that the commissions for proceeding by martial law should be revoked and annulled, lest, by colour of them, any of his Majesty's subjects be

destroyed or put to death, contrary to the laws and franchise of the land." Since that time, no such thing as martial law has been recognised in this country; and courts founded on proclamations of martial law have been wholly unknown. And here I beg to observe, that the particular grievances at which the Petition of Right was levelled, were only the trials under martial law of military persons, or of individuals accompanying, or in some manner connected with, military persons. On the abolition of martial law, what was substituted? In those days, a standing army in time of peace was considered a solecism in the Constitution. Accordingly, the whole course of our legislation proceeded on the principle, that no such establishment was recognised. Afterwards came the annual Mutiny Acts, and Courts Martial which were held only under those acts. These courts were restricted to the trial of soldiers for military offences; and the extent of their powers was pointed out and limited by law. But I will not go further into the consideration of this delicate constitutional question; forthe present case does not rest on any niceties-it depends not on any fine-spun decisions with respect to the law. If it should be said, that, in the conquered colonies, the law of the foreign state may be allowed to prevail over that of England; I reply, that the Crown has no right to conquer a colony, and then import into its constitution all manner of strange and monstrous usages. If the contrary were admitted, the Crown would only have to resort first to one coast of Africa and then to another, and afterwards to the shores of the Pacific, and import the various customs of the barbarous people whom it might subdue; torture from one; the scalping knife and tomahawk from another; from a third, the regal prerogative of paving the palace courts with the skulls of the subject. All the prodigious and unutterable

practices of the most savage nations might thus be naturalized by an act of the Crown, without the concurrence of Parliament, and to the detriment of all British subjects born, or resident, or settling for a season, in those new dominions. Nothing, however, is more clear, than that no practice inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the constitution-such, for instance, as the recourse to torture for the purpose of obtaining evidence-can ever be imported into a colony by any act of conquest. But all considerations of this nature are unnecessary on the present occasion for this court was an English court-martial. The title by which it claimed to sit was the Mutiny Act, and the law of England. The members of the court are estopped from pleading the Dutch law, as that on which their proceedings were founded. They are estopped, because they relied for their right to sit on our own Mutiny Act, which they time after time refer to; and they cannot now pretend that they proceeded on any other ground.

Let us now look for a few moments at the operations which preceded the trial of this poor Missionary. He was, as I have just stated, tried by a court-martial; and we are told by General Murray, in his dispatch of October 21, that it was all the better for him, for that, if he had been tried in any other manner, he might have found a more prejudiced tribunal. Now, Sir, I have no hesitation in saying, that if I had been the party accused, or of counsel for the party accused, I would at once have preferred a civil jurisdiction to the very anomalous proceeding that took place. First of all, I should have gained delay, which in most cases is a great advantage to the accused. In this particular case it must have proved of inestimable benefit to him, as the fever of party rage and personal hostility would have been suffered

gradually to subside. By proceeding under the civil jurisdiction, the addition of the Roman law to that of the common law necessarily occasioned great prolixity in the trial. Months must have elapsed during those proceedings, and at every step the accused would have had a chance of escape. All this would have been of incalculable value; and all this was lost to the accused, by his being summarily brought before a military tribunal. The evidence of Slaves was admitted by the court without doubt or contest ;-a point, however, on which I do not much rely; for I understand that in Demerara the usage in this respect differs from the usage of some other colonies, and that the evidence of Negroes against Whites is considered admissible, although it is not frequently resorted to. Still, however, there is this difference as respects such evidence between a civil and a military court; in the latter, it is received at once, without hesitation; whereas, if the matter is brought before a civil jurisdiction, a preliminary proceeding must take place respecting the admissibility of each witness. His evidence is compared with the evidence of other witnesses, or parts of his evidence are compared with other parts, and on the occurrence of any considerable discrepancy the evidence of that witness is finally refused. There are also previous proceedings, had the subject been brought before a civil jurisdiction, which might have had this effect a discussion takes place before the Chief Justice and two assistants, on the admissibility of witnesses, who are not admitted as evidence in the cause until after a preliminary examination; and I understand, that the circumstance of a witness being a Slave whose evidence is to be adduced against a White man, in cases of doubt, always weighs in the balance against his admissibility. But I pass all this over. I rest the case only on that which is clear, un