and their governments, those of
three of the provinces of New England in
particular, have hitherto been more republican
too.
The absolute governments of Spain, Portugal,
and France, on the contrary, take place
in their colonies; and the discretionary powers
which such governments commonly delegate
to all their inferior officers are, on account
of the great distance, naturally exercised
there with more than ordinary violence.
Under all absolute governments, there is more
liberty in the capital than in any other part of
the country. The sovereign himself can never
have either interest or inclination to pervert
the order of justice, or to oppress the great
body of the people. In the capital, his presence
overawes, more or less, all his inferior
officers, who, in the remoter provinces, from
whence the complaints of the people are less
likely to reach him, can exercise their tyranny
with much more safety. But the European
colonies in America are more remote than
the most distant provinces of the greatest empires
which had ever been known before. The
government of the English colonies is, perhaps,
the only one which, since the world began,
could give perfect security to the inhabitants
of so very distant a province. The
administration of the French colonies, however,
has always been conducted with much
more gentleness and moderation than that of
the Spanish and Portuguese. This superiority
of conduct is suitable both to the character
of the French nation, and to what forms
the character of every nation, the nature of
their government, which, though arbitrary and
violent in comparison with that of Great Britain,
is legal and free in comparison with
those of Spain and Portugal.
It is in the progress of the North American
colonies, however, that the superiority of
the English policy chiefly appears. The progress
of the sugar colonies of France has been
at least equal, perhaps superior, to that of the
greater part of those of England; and yet
the sugar colonies of England enjoy a free
government, nearly of the same kind with that
which takes place in her colonies of North
America. But the sugar colonies of France
are not discouraged, like those of England,
from refining their own sugar; and what is
still of greater importance, the genius of their
government naturally introduces a better management
of their negro slaves.
In all European colonies, the culture of
the sugar-cane is carried on by negro slaves.
The constitution of those who have been born
in the temperate climate of Europe could
not, it is supposed, support the labour of digging
the ground under the burning sun of
the West Indies; and the culture of the sugar-cane,
as it is managed at present, is all
hand labour; though, in the opinion of many,
the drill plough might be introduced into it
with great advantage. But, as the profit and
success of the cultivation which is carried on
by means of cattle, depend very much upon
the good management of those cattle; so the
profit and success of that which is carried on
by slaves must depend equally upon the good
management of those slaves; and in the good
management of their slaves the French planters,
I think it is generally allowed, are superior
to the English. The law, so far as it
gives some weak protection to the slave against
the violence of his master, is likely to be better
executed in a colony where the government
is in a great measure arbitrary, than in
one where it is altogether free. In every country
where the unfortunate law of slavery is established,
the magistrate, when he protects
the slave, intermeddles in some measure in
the management of the private property of
the master; and, in a free country, where the
master is, perhaps, either a member of the colony
assembly, or an elector of such a member,
he dares not do this but with the greatest
caution and circumspection. The respect
which he is obliged to pay to the master, renders
it more difficult for him to protect the
slave. But in a country where the government
is in a great measure arbitrary, where it
is usual for the magistrate to intermeddle even
in the management of the private property of
individuals, and to send them, perhaps, a lettre
de cachet, if they do not manage it according
to his liking, it is much easier for him to
give some protection to the slave; and common
humanity naturally disposes him to do
so. The protection of the magistrate renders
the slave less contemptible in the eyes of his
master, who is thereby induced to consider
him with more regard, and to treat him with
more gentleness. Gentle usage renders the
slave not only more faithful, but more intelligent,
and, therefore, upon a double account,
more useful. He approaches more to the condition
of a free servant, and may possess some
degree of integrity and attachment to his master's
interest; virtues which frequently belong
to free servants, but which never can belong
to a slave, who is treated as slaves commonly
are in countries where the master is perfectly
free and secure.
That the condition of a slave is better under
an arbitrary than under a free government, is,
I believe, supported by the history of all ages
and nations. In the Roman history, the first
time we read of the magistrate interposing to
protect the slave from the violence of his
master, is under the emperors. When Vidius
Pollio, in the presence of Augustus, ordered
one of his slaves, who had committed a slight
fault, to be cut into pieces and thrown into
his fish-pond, in order to feed his fishes, the
emperor commanded him, with indignation,
to emancipate immediately, not only that
slave, but all the others that belonged to him.
Under the republic no magistrate could have