compensation for their labour. He thought one-third of the produce too
much, seeing that the planter had another third to pay to the
Government. He ordered, therefore, one-fourth to the labourer, but this
was in the case only, where the labourer clothed and maintained himself:
where he did not do this, he was entitled to a fourth only nominally,
for out of this his master was to make a deduction for board and
clothing.

The above is all I have been able to collect of the code of Toussaint,
which, under his auspices, had the surprising effect of preserving
tranquillity and order, and of keeping up a spirit of industry on the
plantations of St. Domingo, at a time when only idleness and anarchy
were to have been expected. It was in force when Leclerc arrived with
his invading army, and it continued in force when the French army were
beaten and Negro-liberty confirmed. From Toussaint it passed to
Dessalines, and from Dessalines to Christophe and Petion, and from the
two latter to Boyer; and it is the code therefore which regulates, and I
believe with but very little variation, the relative situation of master
and servant in husbandry at this present hour.

But it is time that I should now wind up the case before us. And, first,
will any one say that this case is not analogous to that which we have
in contemplation? Let us remember that the number of slaves liberated by
the French decrees in St. Domingo was very little short of 500,000
persons, and that this was nearly equal to the number _of all the
slaves_ then in the British West Indian Islands when put together. But
if there be a want of analogy, the difference lies on my side of the
question. I maintain, that emancipation in _St. Domingo_ was attended
with _far more hazard_ to persons and property, and with _far greater
difficulties_, than it could possibly be, if attempted _in our own