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.

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

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.

3. Her moral character is so bad, that she would prove very troublesome
should she come 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?