For argument's sake he would suppose this to be true, and that there would be loss; but would it not be fair that the money should be lodged in the hands of a third party, with authority to pay back at the expiration of the two years whatever rateable sum the master could prove himself to have lost?
His firm belief was, that no loss could arise; but, desirous to meet the planter at every point, he should have no objection to make terms with him.

Let him, then, pay the money into court, as it were, and at the end of two years he should be fully indemnified for any loss he might prove.

He called upon their lordships to look to Antigua and the Bermudas for proof that the free negro worked well, and that no loss was occasioned to the planters or their property by the granting of emancipation.

But it was said that there was a difference between the cases of Antigua and other colonies, such as Jamaica, and it was urged that while the negroes of the former, from the smallness and barrenness of the place, would be forced into work, that in the latter they would run away, and take refuge in the woods.

Now, he asked, why should the negro run away from his work, on being made free, more than during the continuance of his apprenticeship?
Why, again, should it be supposed that on the 1st of August, 1840, the emancipated negroes should have less inclination to betake themselves to the woods than in 1838?
If there was a risk of the slaves running to the woods in 1838, that risk would be increased and not diminished during the intermediate period up to 1840, by the treatment they were receiving from their masters, and the deferring of their hopes.
My lords, (continued the noble lord,) I have now to say a few words upon the treatment which the slaves have received during the past three years of their apprenticeship, and which, it is alleged, during the next two years is to make them fitted for absolute emancipation.